Follow Us

DMN on Feedburner
Connect with:
divider image

16 Artists That Are Now Speaking Out Against Streaming…

There used to be one band with the courage to do this sort of thing: Metallica.  Now, there are dozens of high-profile artists, with outspoken critics like David Lowery and Thom Yorke leading a previously-unthinkable level of protest against streaming and content devaluation.  Here are just a few of those voices that emerged in 2013.

(1) Amanda Palmer

Speaking at Virgin Disruptors in October, Palmer blasted leading platforms like YouTube, Spotify and iTunes for profiting handsomely off of artists while re-investing nothing in that content.

virgindisruptorspalmer

“And one weird thing is that iTunes, Apple, Spotify, Google, whatever, all of the people who are profiting – [and] YouTube – who are profiting off the artists from the small level to the huge levels aren’t really feeding very much back into the creation of new content.  And, that’s actually one of the largest problems, and even though my views aren’t nearly as extreme as David Byrne’s, he does bring up the giant question, which is ‘where is the capital going to come from to make art?‘  And people might think it’s crazy for me to say that, because you can crowdfund, you can – there’s a lot of things you can do.”

“But wouldn’t it seem that the place that is making the lion’s share of the profit should actually also be putting money back into the creation of content to make a healthy ecosystem?”

 

(2) will.i.am

Speaking at the same event, will.i.am questioned whether VEVO and YouTube were unfairly forcing artists to accept certain branding associations, while carefully removing the artist from the profit stream.

williamleavingartistsout

 

“And so while we’re paying for our videos to be on that platform, to Amanda’s point, at what point in time does VEVO pay for content, that gives them the ability to put commercials that we don’t want before our content? And do we get to choose what commercials come before and after our content, when I’m the one paying for the video?”

“That’s a very, very, very touchy, touchy, touchy subject that no one’s talking about, as far as technology killing the music industry. Actually, the music industry has been redefined, utilizing the technology, leaving the artist out of the equation.

“So the power has to go back to the artist, and that’s what we’re experiencing here. Somebody’s monetizing it, you can’t just say a billion views and be like ‘yup, you’re free just like the artists are free’.”

“Somebody’s getting paid a lot of f*&ing money.”

(3) Thom Yorke

July 14th, 2013, Yorke blasted Spotify for short-changing musicians while preparing for massive Wall Street millions.

yorketweet

more.

(4) Nigel Godrich

At the same moment, Radiohead producer announced a high-profile removal of certain Yorke and Atoms for Peace content from Spotify.

nigelf-all

 

more.

(5) Zoe Keating

Keating has been publishing her criminally-low streaming royalty statements for years, while also question whether touring really makes sense for the bulk of artists.  Speaking to the New York Times in January…

“In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if [streaming] is going to be the only way people consume music…”

(6) David Lowery

The most outspoken, hated/loved, and most importantly – effective – artist activist in the world.   As portrayed by the New York Times in October…

“In public appearances and no-holds-barred blog posts, Mr. Lowery, 53, has come to represent the anger of musicians in the digital age. When an NPR Music intern confessed in a blog post last year that she paid very little for her music, he scolded her in a 3,800-word open letter that framed the issue in moral terms. Since then, he has attacked Pandora for trying to lower royalty rates, accused Google of masterminding a broad anti-copyright campaign and compared people who doubt the effect of piracy on musicians to those who think President Obama is a Muslim.”

And, of course…

June 18th, 2012.  “Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered.”

(7) Beck

In a rather relaxed interview, Beck described the difficult economics that now surround the inevitable.

“Streaming is inevitable, it’s something that is coming, like it or not.  But I question how I can hang on or stay afloat with this model, because what Spotify pays me isn’t enough for me to pay the musicians I work with, or the people producing or mastering my music.  The model doesn’t work, so we have to come up with ways in which people can help us to make music for free, or at least for much less.  But the current way isn’t working, something’s gotta give.”

“If I tried to make my albums with that Spotify pays me, I wouldn’t make them.  I couldn’t hire other musicians or someone to master it; I’d have to do everything myself.”

(8) David Byrne

In early October, Byrne deeply questioned whether platforms like Spotify, YouTube, and Pandora can adequately support newer artists – and culture in general.

“For a band of four people that makes a 15% royalty from Spotify streams, it would take 236,549,020 streams for each person to earn a minimum wage of $15,080 (£9,435) a year. For perspective, Daft Punk’s song of the summer, ‘Get Lucky,’ reached 104,760,000 Spotify streams by the end of August: the two Daft Punk guys stand to make somewhere around $13,000 each. Not bad, but remember this is just one song from a lengthy recording that took a lot of time and money to develop. That won’t pay their bills if it’s their principal source of income. And what happens to the bands who don’t have massive international summer hits?”

“The inevitable result would seem to be that the internet will suck the creative content out of the whole world until nothing is left.”

Byrne has pulled off as much of his content from Spotify as possible; more in his essay (published by the Guardian).

 

(9) The Black Keys

The Keys were one of the first to speak sharply against Spotify, and pull their music.  Drummer Patrick Carney said this about Spotify in 2011, long before the onslaught.

“For unknown bands and smaller bands, it’s a really good thing to get yourself out there. But for a band that makes a living selling music, streaming royalties are not at a point yet to be feasible for us”.

(10) Aimee Mann

Back in January, Aimee Mann was still an early protesting voice.  ”My record isn’t on Spotify,” Mann told the Telegraph.

“People may be outraged, but artists don’t make money from Spotify.”

”I think people have a totally different relationship to music these days.  There’s a feeling that it’s cheapeasydisposable – and it’s free and it’s there.  Then you start thinking it should always be free, and always be there.”

 

(11) Pink Floyd

In a very sharply-worded reaction this past June, the members of Pink Floyd blasted Pandora co-founder for tricking artists into signing and supporting an 85% paycut.

“Of course, this letter doesn’t say anything about an 85 percent artist pay cut. That would probably turn off most musicians who might consider signing on. All it says about royalties is ‘we are all fervent advocates for the fair treatment of artists.’”

“Meanwhile, artists are losing compensation at a dramatic rate. ”For almost all working musicians, it’s also a question of economic survival. Nearly 90% of the artists who get a check for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year. They cannot afford the 85% pay cut Pandora asked Congress to impose on the music community.”

“Fine print is one thing. But a musician could read this ‘letter of support’ a dozen times and hold it up to a funhouse mirror for good measure without realizing she was signing a call to cut her own royalties to pad Pandora’s bottom line.”

 

(12) Anssi Kela

One of Finland’s biggest pop stars is also a sensation on Spotify.  Too bad his paycheck isn’t very sensational: just last month, Anssi Kela took the step of posting his entire streaming royalty statements online, revealing depressingly-low payouts.   “The Finnish market simply can’t produce enough volume to make small streams into large seas,” Kela relayed.

“At the moment, people need to listen to my song on Spotify about two thousand times before I’ve earned about the same as one sold CD.”

(13) Mikael “Count” Eldridge

If David Lowery is the artist activist, Count is his producer-activist counterpart.  His recently-funded documentary-in-progress, Unsound, explores the massive (and often negative) changes affecting artists in the digital era.  That includes the oft-unspoken connection between piracy and streaming platforms like Spotify, both of which have radically devalued the value of recorded music.

 

(14) Blake Morgan

 In July, the recording artist, producer, and label owner questioned why Pandora and its founder, Tim Westergren, have been so thoroughly underestimating the intelligence of artists.

“Instead of lobbying Congress (as you have) to lower Pandora’s rates, honor the rates Pandora, artists, and labels agreed upon together for Internet radio hand-in-hand with Congress in 2009. It’s an agreement artists went into with you in good faith, that already dramatically lowered the rates Pandora had to pay. It’s an agreement Mr. Westergren himself applauded at the time, famously and happily announcing on his own blog, “the royalty crisis is over!” It was also an agreement we were all supposed to continue honoring together, until 2015.”

“Instead of claiming that artists like myself who have expressed disappointment in Pandora are being manipulated by our own performance rights organizations, understand that this is the smartest, best educated, best informed, most resourceful generation of musicians in this country’s history, and we know fairness when we see it.”

(15) East Bay Ray

The Dead Kennedys guitarist Ray Pepperell (aka, East Bay Ray) emerged as a staunch critic of Google-enabled piracy, not to mention unfair payouts by YouTube.  In February, Ray shared calculations with Digital Music News showing that YouTube was responsible for putting at least 12,000 musicians to work.

 

(16) The Entire Swedish Musicians’ Union

Which is, a very large amount of artists in the strongest stronghold of streaming.  All of whom are question whether Spotify even has a right to use their music.

“We’re saying that labels aren’t even allowed to give out this digital content to begin with.  So we want our music deleted, from every streaming platform.  That way, we can start from scratch and start re-negotiating and see where it lands.”

more.

blue bar background graphic
Comments (59)
  1. TuneHunter

    Hay YOU, the protesting artists or MANAGERS, each one of you should roll your rolodexes and find TEN equal or better artists to join new FRONT of monetization.

    FREE, SEMI-FREE (Spoofy, Deezer, Pandora) or ad supported TUBE is a blind race to PEANUTS!

    100 billions in music is around us lets grab it!

    As much as I do not care for unions Swedish musician union might have proper infrastructure to consolidate this overdue frontal attack to sanity.


    Reply
    1. Derrick Stevens

      I refuse to support Pandora, Youtube, Spotify e.t.c. They’re ripping people off! Bypass them and just download the music off the web directly. It’s much better sound quality with no ads or other BS. Just free good music!
      F U Pandora!!


      Reply
      1. TuneHunter

        Just take a hike!
        Freeloaders do not belong to this forum.


        Reply
  2. Casey

    Those who was Spotify and Pandora are making too much profit lose all credibility. The endless amount of red ink says otherwise.


    Reply
    1. Faza (TCM)

      Which does rather beg the question of what they’re good for, don’t you think?

      I’ll clue you in: for letting the insiders cash out nicely post-liquidity. Just ask Million-Dollar-a-Month Tim.


      Reply
  3. Geoff

    remember that when thee companies cry ‘poor’ and say how they aren’t really making money, thats AFTER they pay huge salaries to CEOS etc…Look at Daniel Ek (Spotify) who’s net worth went from 10 bucks to about $310 million in TWO YEARS.


    Reply
    1. Casey

      That had nothing to do with his salary.


      Reply
      1. FarePlay

        This is all such tiresome tripe. The internet is finally being seen for what it is, a corporate money machine that profits off the back of content providers.

        Why are these services bleeding red ink? Because they’re not interested in running a for-profit business financed by “paying” subscribers. These guys are not interested in creating a sustainable business; they’re interested in cashing out with an IPO. Stop already with the obfuscation about the record labels and rich rock starts.

        We all know they want the 70 million “user” number to stroke the fantasy that there is actually a business there. The reason we hear from the successful musicians is because they’re the only ones that get press. They’re standing up as much for being musicians as anything else.

        Guys, you’re days are over intimidating musicians into silence. Because the musicians have nothing to lose at this point. The reality is services like Pandora and Spotify contribute heavily to the perception that music is value-less, by keeping their services free forever. And you know they want it that way.

        Go ahead and take your music, but leave your contempt, entitlement and arrogance at the door.

        We get it.


        Reply
        1. Casey

          Of course Pandora wants to keep their service free. And why is that? Because their primary competitor is broadcast radio, which is completely and absolutely free and has been “devaluing” music longer than most here have been alive. It is a huge industry with plenty of money to be made, which Pandora would have no chance of penetrating if they didn’t also offer a free service. Plus their primary internet competitors, like IHeart, DI, Slacker, iTunesRadio, Jango, etc. are also all free. Just like radio has been for decades.

          You know what the problem is with the music industry? The problem is you guys all live in a bubble. You have absolutely no idea what is going on in other industries despite your best to prove otherwise. Do you know what is really going on at Pandora? How they have been actively poaching local advertisers from broadcast radio. How they have been actively integrating their service into every dashboard to achieve unrivaled penetration. How they broke $100 million in mobile advertising revenue in the 3rd quarter, putting them among the top companies for mobile advertising revenues in the world. Or how they now control more than 8% of the total US radio industry. Apparently not as you continuously act like it is the end of the world and nothing but a quick dollar for the Pandora execs, despite being in business for 13 years. That’s probably longer than most people reading this site have been in the music industry.


          Reply
          1. royal

            You don’t even know what you don’t know yet. Broadcast Radio and TV has NOT been devaluing music, but has rather been in a symbiotic relationship with it for many decades.


            Reply
            1. Casey

              They don’t devalue music? That brings us to the twisted music industry logic. Terrestrial radio is somehow okay, despite the fact that it doesn’t pay artists and people could record music right off it for years. Internet radio though, that’s the devil. Despite the fact that internet stations have to pay artists and have proven to drive substantial amounts of music sales. Despite the fact that internet radio delivers countless artists who will never make it to terrestrial radio to a wide selection of listeners. Despite the fact that it is the only logical technology path for radio and provides countless features, (superior metadata, tagging, superior music discovery, customization, etc.) all of which benefits artists. All internet radio, especially Pandora who is the largest and most revolutionary, needs to die. The reason? Because it’s free, just like terrestrial radio.


              Reply
              1. FarePlay

                Casey, please. Internet radio drives “considerable” music sales? Then why are recorded music sales down over 50% in the past decade?


                Reply
                1. TuneHunter

                  We will close 2013 at 17.?? billion, as is inflation adjusted 1999 is around 56B today!

                  We are less than 30% of good times.

                  In the meantime CEO of Universal which “controls” around 60% of tunes make over 10 million a year.
                  Global Master of digital giveaway at the same Universal is also in millions. RIAA has hibernated.

                  Google with few fresh ideas and and nice “wrecking ball” is our only hope to cash!


                  Reply
                2. Casey

                  Because music downloading happened. No more did people need to buy a full album to get the 1 song they wanted. And then of course file sharing, cyber lockers, youtube downloading, etc. have had significant effects.

                  Apple, the largest music retailer in the world, has created an internet radio product that will probably lose money indefinitely because they have so much faith in the ability to generate download sales from internet radio. What more proof does one need to show what internet radio can do.


                  Reply
              2. Alan Sells

                Radio does pay. ASCAP and BMI big bucks! To make stars out of nobodys. radio has paid forever.


                Reply
  4. Adam

    We will see a corresponding list of people who supported streaming in 2013? Or is that not negative enough for Paul?


    Reply
  5. jw

    Didn’t the Black Keys put their stuff on Spotify? All but like 8 songs?

    Guess it makes more sense than it used to.


    Reply
    1. Me

      El Camino (their latest album, released 2 years ago) is still not available on Spotify. The rest of their catalog is, however.


      Reply
  6. David

    EVERY artist on this list (apart from Beck and East Bay Ray) HAS RECORDINGS ON SPOTIFY!

    Did I miss something here? Or is the author just trying to add to an Anit-Spotify agenda?

    These guys will say payments should be higher, of course. Try and find one person in the world who does not want more money. Of course, that would be great but it’s not the REALITY of the new music business. It has to be FREE or FEEL FREE. Get used to it!


    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “It has to be FREE “

      Nonsense. Fans will pay whatever you charge for a great new song. Provided, of course, that they can’t stream it for free or steal it without consequences.

      So just say no to streaming, and introduce consequences for piracy…


      Reply
      1. Casey

        And artists who do that may find they only have 2 fans willing to pay whatever you charge.


        Reply
    2. buck shine

      The artist’s have no say in the decision to stream, if the label they signed to decides to stream their music.
      It’s only their independant music that these artist’s could stop from streaming. I’m so relieved to hear artist ‘s finally speaking out now that it’s obvious Spotify, Pandora, etc….could give a rat’s ass about keeping artist’s in business.


      Reply
    3. Paul Resnikoff

      Actually, many of these artists would remove all of their content, IF they could. Thom Yorke signed many of those rights away a long time ago, so he can only exercise power over certain pieces of music, like Atoms for Piece.


      Reply
      1. TuneHunter

        Didn’t realize it is so tragic.
        After total green light to streaming and creation of Veevoo Mr. Keeling has to just find investors to to provide unlimited data package to all heavy music users! Then the killing process will be finished.


        Reply
    4. Anon

      “It has to be FREE…” Sure David, that is clearly a well thought out and very informed answer. We will just make music for your entertainment for free from now on because we have “gotten used to it”. I am sure music as a whole will not suffer from that. Golly gosh and we will pay our bills with your appreciation, and fill our bellies with your adoration, which will be delivered to us by unicorns.


      Reply
    5. Versus

      “Reality”? This is all convention, not some absolute truth ordained by God. Music can be devalued, and it can be re-valued. People learned to pay for bottled water, learned to pay for cable TV….they can learn to pay for music again. Proper criminal penalties would help, and they should be retroactive for all the freeloaders to date.


      Reply
  7. Anonymous

    “So we [Swedish Musician's Union] want our music deleted, from every streaming platform”

    …a message we’re going to hear a lot from musicians all over the world in the time to come.

    And for those of you who haven’t signed away your rights yet: Listen to the Swedes — they are after all the experts here — and say no streaming!

    Remember this: The only way to make money from streaming is to start a streaming site.


    Reply
  8. JTVDigital

    Hi there,

    The more I read these articles about artists complaining about streaming payouts, the more it seems like they are missing the point.
    Most (if not all) these artists do have record labels, right?
    It would be interesting to know how much % their label is keeping, from the already low streaming revenue…
    First thing might be for them to check how their current recording deal splits the revenue between label and artist when it comes to digital income.

    Jeremie Varengo – JTV Digital
    http://www.jtvdigital.com


    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    1-“But wouldn’t it seem that the place that is making the lion’s share of the profit should actually also be putting money back into the creation of content to make a healthy ecosystem?”

    Yes, and they actually do. If you don’t think it’s enough it’s a legitimate opinion, try to tell us how and how much should they putting more.

    2-”“And so while we’re paying for our videos to be on that platform, to Amanda’s point, at what point in time does VEVO pay for content, that gives them the ability to put commercials that we don’t want before our content? And do we get to choose what commercials come before and after our content, when I’m the one paying for the video?”

    And when artist were paying for promotional video to air on mtv, did they have some control over the ads?
    don’t you understand that the corporate fluid scale economy grown and sustained by the people you hangry at, is the ONLY REASON musically mediocre shoes-sellers and eyewear models like you had a career in the first place? just letting this guy speak about not making enough money it’s an insult to a lot of troubled people in the world.

    3-A traditional rockband guy trying to appeal at his traditional supporters to make them stand up for their collective traditonal habits (it’s clear that “fellow musician” don’t include say…glitch hop laptop producers). I respect that in some sense, being proud of glorious past, but anyone with an high school history knowledge knows exactly where it is going. extintion.

    4-see 3

    5-“In certain types of music, like classical or jazz, we are condemning them to poverty if [streaming] is going to be the only way people consume music…”

    What??? studies tells little jazz/classic musicians make records revenue at all, they gotta work for hire or teach, less fashionable but solid money anyway. People condemned to poverty are the little kids that recycle tech-waste in pakistan, you simply DON’T DESERVE THE POOR MAN STATUS, if you don’t like being who you are, get a job at wallmart. yes, i mean it.

    6-mr David Lowery, who exactly appointed you to represent the category of musicians?
    and given the complexity of analyzing piracy phenomenon both in economic, historycal, cultural and even in technical/juridic terms, because you know, copyright law isn’t god-given perfection, how could you be so confident to spek of skeptic academic researchers as they were retarded conspiracy theorist?

    7, 8 see 3

    others are talking about Pandora, if you din’t get it, conventionally, and for good technical reason,
    PANDORA IS NOT CATEGORIZED AS STREAMING, so its just off topic.


    Reply
  10. Rick Ellis

    While I love this site, the endless drone of anti-streaming posts is tiring.

    Spotify is just another delivery system. Complaining that they don’t put money into artist development makes about as much sense as complaining the manufacturer of your radio doesn’t have a label. It’s apples and oranges.

    Spotify is also not a substitute for sales revenues. No, you’re not going to make as much off of someone streaming your music as you do when someone buys the track. But streaming and sales are very different in a variety of ways and if you can’t see that, then you really do need a better sense of the business.

    Spotify is not responsible for the fact that your label is screwing you. If the money that you receive from your label is only sliver of what they get from Spotify, then it’s not up to Spotify to make you whole. If you sold off your publishing or don’t own our masters or just signed an overall bad deal, then that is on you.


    Reply
  11. music buyer

    this entire conversation is so unbelievable. i pay for downloads to my computer, so that i can use it with djing apps. this music is mostly produced by single persons, on a single machine – it can be just as enjoyable as anything ever produced on a 64,000 channel Mackie board and an orchestra of musicians trained at Juliard. this fact is the single most significant reason all musicians as a whole, can not really live well off of the music making / production alone. Spotify is not stealing the money out of musicians’ pockets – they are losing money.

    here is an idea – Thom and company – 20 of you top musicians – put up or shut up. here is how: take some money out of your opulent lifestyle budgets (skip on a new ferrari for one model year, sell the french riviera villa, for now). pool your bucks, and put up USD 20 mil. use it to build a music start-up, from the ground up – you hire the engineers and make day to day decisions. since you all know so much about business. then, use your charisma, and your musical acumen to exclusively sign new talent, to your platform. make the consumer pay to access this exclusive content, via your platform, and make us pay what is fair. everyone wins. easy!

    ‘cmon – it is just the 20mil and all your experience you already have. is piracy the sole reason that this has not yet been done? maybe the nsa could help this cause.


    Reply
    1. Ashton Smith

      Wow do you even know most of the musicians on this list? Obviously not because if you did you would be aware of the fact that Blake Morgan essentially did what you’re suggesting oh and most likely with much less than 20 million bux. When he realized the big label he was signed to was a sinking ship he had the guts to walk and create an entirely different kind of music label. I’ve personally met this man and can tell you he’s not cruising around NYC in a limo or a expensive ass car, he’s usually on the subway. And he is not the typical record label CEO, he actually supports and personally attends and works the events and performances all his label artists have in NYC and most of the surrounding cities. When was the last time you went to a show and saw the artist’s record label CEO selling CD’s himself at the show? I’m going to go with never…and he’s the only one I know I’ve ever seen doing it, and let me add it was a show for one of the lesser known musicians on his label and the show was free.


      Reply
  12. FarePlay

    2013 has been a transformational year, where we’ve seen for the first time, a steady stream of artists stepping forward and speaking out about a digital economy focussed on corporate profits without consideration for artist compensation.

    2014 will be the year where musicians, filmmakers, authors and the entire creative community will come together to speak out collectively for artists’ digital rights.

    Their voices will be heard.


    Reply
    1. db

      -snaps-


      Reply
      1. Anon.

        Agreed. The time has come for the creative community to cut the abuse and make some real dough, like all the fuckers working for the streaming sites exploiting them.


        Reply
        1. Casey

          You mean the people getting laid off because the streaming services can’t afford to pay their employees?


          Reply
    2. Paul Resnikoff

      This was the point of this article, thanks FarePlay. Metallica was an early outlier, with ultimately a strong opinion in the debate. They realized that this stance was bad for Metallica, Inc., and discontinued.

      Obviously, this year was completely different. And it is already changing the way Spotify and others are doing business.


      Reply
    1. TuneHunter

      No matter what links you show me, Spotify will remain giant meat grinder converting prime beef to low grade dog food.

      Streamers and YouTube are only roadblocks to discovery based 100 billion dollar industry!


      Reply
      1. TuneHunter

        100 million subscribers of Spoofy will deliver just 7 billion dollars.

        If they will ever get 100M paying users.

        Same amount cash is hidden in proper utilization of The Echo Nest similar tune discovery machine!
        Providing that service is not free element of Spoofy, Pandora, XM and others.


        Reply
  13. Anon

    Why no DMN article on Spotify Artists yet? Bit slow with the news reporting… oh wait… that’s because it’s positive about streaming…


    Reply
    1. Boybeyond

      Exactly – really strange how spotifyartists got full scale coverage in every other music publication as well as most mainstream ones, but not even a mention here? Just doesn’t fit with your preconstructed and fixed agenda. Artists are changing their minds, even some of the very ones you mention here like pink floyd, black keys, when they realise the very simple truth that the issue is not what they get from spotify, it’s what they get from their label after they have taken their cut. Spotify pays back 70% of revenue to the rightsholders – would rightsholders get 70% of the price of a CD. No.

      Baffled how you can’t seem to grasp this simple truth. Maybe check out some of the explanations by the many more than 16 artists who support streaming. Billy Bragg just to take one: https://www.facebook.com/billybraggofficial/posts/10151735858067471


      Reply
      1. FarePlay

        Yes, we saw that. I’ve even read that Ek enjoys music. It would all be so comforting if Spotify wasn’t design to eradicate the sale of recorded music, leaving a paltry compensation for artists and their music.


        Reply
        1. boybeyond

          erm … you may have seen it but you have clearly not been listening … Spotify pays 70% back to the labels. More than is paid back per CD, LP, cassette etc … if the artists don’t get paid it’s due to their label agreements. Spotify is designed to pay more back to the rightsholders than older formats – whether it makes it back from the rightsholders to the aritsts is out of Spotify’s control. Read the billy bragg post, it’s a very simple concept. i have to credit you for being able to willfully ignore or not get such a simple thing


          Reply
          1. FarePlay

            No you don’t get it. And the 70% parity number you keep throwing around has no value to artists. The business model for Spotify, designed to heavily erode the sale of pre-recorded music is the kicker. Done, game over.

            For over a decade we’ve been hearing about how exposure creates alternative revenue streams and riches from touring. Didn’t happen. The entire Spotify model model based on Napster for pennies was simply taking advantage of a crippled industry. Crippled by the legion of pirate sites that Napster Spawned.


            Reply
  14. nypbbob

    Artists are signing up left and right with Funn Networks.. From what we have seen, they have the cure and at least give a hoot about the industry, what artists are paid and better yet desire to see everyone happy.


    Reply
  15. Johnny Kareem Gagnon

    The old giants joined internet giants , tied their corporations and industry together in a pretty knot with pretty loops from big quantities of vault stored recordings.Now ,and once more, to dominate and monopolize their hungry appetites for conquering mainstream(new territory)internet income to the end of the ozone air waves…. all time tapes of greats in virtual rotations ,more of oldies and goodies again …… but for the ones who made and created it all,people,their value expired on the lowest levels of capitalism,those shelves buried way beneath their precious …….. Sound Recordings


    Reply
  16. Reynaldo Merriwether

    How to let the other people know about your blogspot?

    lowindia.com


    Reply
  17. Ti-Panda Transport

    First, there is something fresh about the fact that “big artists” sounds concerned.
    The problem did start years ago with internet piracy and they won.
    Spotify, Google, Pandora, whatever will win, no doubt, capitalism and big corporation
    always win.
    As an indie artist we tried to adapt ourself, so, we can’t afford a decent record studio, we do laptop music,
    we can’t pay a drummer, we use a backtrack etcc… since the recent saddest day we are experiencing is the fact that we can’t go on tour anymore as we use to do during years…we feel like we are dying slowly and surely, and even we see many artists giving up we don’t want to think about that for now.
    Now to do promo and have internet exposure needs payment, the internet model is to make the indie musicien to pay for everything.
    What we want and what we expect is SOLUTIONS ! So I sincerely hope that after the river of complains from big stars solutions will be found, this is our only hope !
    NB: for people who could treat us as fuckin’ losers complaining, I know this kind of blog and we were told many times that we are not legitimate to open our mouth :-) our music was featuring in Grey’s Anatomy and in many other synchros in Europe, we are small but we work hard to do a good job and deserve respect…I use to compare us as “handmade carpenter” vs Ikea.
    Wish ya a good day to all of you !


    Reply
  18. Alan Sells

    Wow, sounds like Spotify is supposed to pay the bills. What a bunch of bitchy babies. Spotify is one stream of revenue nobody had 5 years ago. Sorry, I suppose 10′s of millions isn’t enough. ASCAP, BMI, iTunes, hard CDs and merch at shows. Now I suppose we’ll see who does it for the sake of art.


    Reply
  19. Pingback: I Respect Music: Artists’ Pay for Radio Play - Moby Dok

  20. Pingback: I Respect Music: Artists’ Pay for Radio Play | Entertainment News

  21. Pingback: I Respect Music: Artists' Pay for Radio Play | We Report

  22. Pingback: I Respect Music: Artists’ Pay for Radio Play | Business News | Finance News | Stock News | Real Estate News | Auto News

  23. Joe Graham

    All of these people make shitty music. They all need skinned alive. Don’t worry I’ll never download any of these worthless whores “art”.


    Reply
    1. Jeff

      That’s right, you tell ‘em Joe. You go and fail to support the artists whose music you enjoy – that’ll show ‘em…


      Reply
  24. Pingback: How Google Failed at Acquiring Spotify - SiteProNews

  25. Pingback: How Google Failed at Acquiring Spotify | SOUTHBAY INTERNET SOLUTIONS

Leave a Reply

Connect with:


4 − = three

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  1. OUR SPONSORS

  2.  
  3. Most Heated!