Top iPad Music Apps (a/o May 23rd):
(
The following is a statement from label group Century Media, which announced Tuesday that it was pulling all content from Spotify to "protect the interests of its artists." Century includes InsideOutMusic, Superballmusic and People Like You.
_______________________
"While everyone at the label group believes in the ever-changing possibilities of new technology and new ways of bringing music to the fans, Century Media is also of the opinion that Spotify in
its present shape and form isn't the way forward. The income streams to the artists are affected massively and therefore that accelerates the downward spiral, which eventually will lead to artists not being able to record music the way it should be recorded. Ultimately, in some cases, it will completely kill a lot of smaller bands that are already struggling to make ends meet.
"At the same time, Century Media also believes that Spotify is a great tool to discover new music and is in the process of reintroducing their bands to Spotify by way of putting up samplers of the artists. This way, fans can still discover the great music released by the label.
"Physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries where Spotify is active. Artists are depending on their income from selling music and it is our job to support them to do so. Since the artists need to sell their music to continue their creativity, Spotify is a problem for them. This is about survival, nothing less, and it is time that fans and consumers realize that for artists it is essential to sell music to keep their heads above water.
"Obviously, it is ultimately up to the music fan and consumer how they access their music, whether it is buying, streaming or stealing. There needs to be awareness, though, that how you will consume your music has direct consequences for the artists, who we are all trying to support."
____________________
Comments Closed
@stagebite Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Gil Garcia
More indies 2 follow?
Jim Jones Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Forget about indies, artists should be the ones pissed about streaming.
It's a pretty amazing stance for a label to say artists are getting nothing, here. And that streaming is fucked up.
Streaming is a godsend for labels only, not artists.
Label takes a big advance from Spotify and others, and artists get nada.
Bernnyyy Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Although, I agree with Century Media in that smaller bands and artists that are struggling to make ends meet cannot financially benefit from Spotify, I disagree with their way of dealing with this issue. They talk about an accelerated downward spiral in artist income, and blame it on the fact that "physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries where Spotify is active". However, this downward spiral has been going on for a long time, and personally, I think it is antiquated to continue to blame it on the decline of physical sales. Any smart, modern-day artist knows that for at least 10 years now, they have not been able to rely on the income they receive from recorded music. They have had 10 years to make the adjustment, use their creativity, and comes up with different streams of income. I am at no extent saying this is an easy task, but it is reality. I do not think it is time that "fans and consumers realize that for artists it is essential to sell music to keep their heads above water", I think it is time for the music industry to realize that unless the government takes drastic measures to pursue every lawsuit involving illegal downloading/sharing of music, consumers will never again pay for recorded music the way we used to. Century Media is also correct in that "Spotify is a great tool to discover new music" for many reasons, of which my favorite being the "related artists" tab. To only put up samplers of a track on Spotify is, in my opinion, very limiting. If I wanted to hear a sample of a song, I could go on iTunes. And, if I really liked it, or didn't have iTunes, I could just go onto YouTube, Pandora, and Grooveshark (just to name a few) to listen to the full version. Oh, and none of these are illegal (unless I download and covert a song from YouTube), and I still listened to at least 90 seconds of the song. So ulitmately, it IS about survival- survival of the fittest. I think it's important for artists (and Century Media) to remember that whether or not they are aware of it, fans are looking for different things in their music. There are artists that make a big chunk of their income from recorded music, and others that profit the most from their gigs, and merch. Therefore, not all music can be sold in the same way. As a musician, I am sad to say this, but if you are trying to make money from music, then your music is your product. Spotify is creating opportunities for new music to be heard, and for their artists to get paid for it, even if it is a small amount. To emit music from Spotify just means that you are closing off from one more avenue from which to get your music heard.
James Wednesday, August 10, 2011
To emit music from Spotify just means that you are closing off from one more avenue from which to get your music heard.
But he said that Century are going to keep samplers on Spotify for this reason. I think their stance is a reasonable one: keep Spotify as a tool for promotion (though it's debatable how much actual discovery goes on through Spotify) and direct people to downloads/physical sales for everything else.
Bernnyyy Wednesday, August 10, 2011
James, I see your point, but I also think that defeats the purpose
of Spotify. Like I said earlier, if I wanted to hear a sample of a song there
are many other platforms I could use. Grooveshark even lets you stream full-length
songs at no cost. Also, Spotify lets you add music to your library and then
sync it to your mobile device and iPod... why would I want to have a bunch of
samples on my iPod?
e Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Samplers not samples... they aren't going to deliver clips of songs to Spotify. They are going to deliver one or two full tracks.
Dave Ulmer Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Ummm, did he just say that CD sales are plummeting because of Spotify?!? Hold on, incoming call, 1999 is on the line and wants its excuses back.
Going down Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The streamers are accelerating the declining revenues.
Now is Centuary Media going to stop all its full length streams from everywhere on the internet?
Karen Allen Wednesday, August 10, 2011
I love you, Dave Ulmer.
joanned Wednesday, August 10, 2011
jajaja!
Richard Morris Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Imagine this. In the future artists dont write music because they want to hit it big and makes lots of money, which is the way it is now. Nobody thinks im going to just write a song and give it away. most artists these days only do the music to make money. thats it period. money is the only thing they are concerned about. an artist today can put out any kind of drivel and mass people will flock to buy it. makes no sense to me. There is a lot of trash music out there. stuff that sounds stupid as all get out. Artists dont even write their music, they buy it and the lyrics from someone else and then sing it to the rest of us. They sing it like they are the ones who wrote it. like they are the ones living like the stories in their songs when in fact they have no idea what the song they are singing is really about. I say the hell with all artists who sing songs. Garth brooks is one of those artists. Country musics washed up poster boy. I use to be a huge Garth brooks fan because he sang some good songs. he was also suppose to be, according to the labels, a role model who could do no wrong. Then he was caught cheating on his wife. Garth is just an example but if you look around at all the artists and seriously stand back and just look at the people singing these songs and knowing full well they didnt write any of them then that might give you a better understanding of just how ridiculous these singers look trying to be all high and mighty and of course rich. They owe their entire existence to us. The Writers who really do live these stories in the songs we write. We get paid didly squat for our insights into life while these so called artists take our music and try to trick people into beleiving it is them who these insights came from. These singers are walking around like they are the most coolest people on the planet and having all the children look up to them like they are the best role model in the world and then they do stupid crap like cheat on their wives or smoke and do drugs or become an alcoholic or whatever. Makes me sick to think about it. Not an ounce of creativity in any of them which is why they turn to those other activities.
I want to see the real person who wrote the songs. i want to know the writers real life story. Thats where the creativity is coming from. Not some clown on a stage. SHow me the real behind the songs. Give me the real not some phony actor on the stage. I am curious about where the inspiration behind the songs came from. I will never go to see someone at a concert. For starters i like my hearing. secondly i would rather say hey man you wrote this song(to the writer) its cool can i buy a record from you. I would prefer to give writers my money. They are the real ones who need it. Almost every writer makes their own albums and i would gladly give 20 bucks for an album of the actual writer singing their own music. Way more feeling behind it.
imagine this, In the future writers get the full credit for their work. and get the praise they deserve. And get to live a better life by telling us their stories themselves.
Ken Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Richard,
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I believe that your example of Garth Brooks falls a little short, since I believe that he was at least a cowriter for most of his songs. His mega-hit Friends In Low Places is an exception, I believe.
Ken Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Ugh, and an apology to all for my using the phrase "I believe" so many times.
Ken
Applying for a fellowship to the Department of Redundancy Department
Marco Wednesday, August 10, 2011
@richard
You either sound like a child, or a conservative father from the 1950's, can't make up my mind which.
You generalise so lazily it's embarrising.
James Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Richard, not all songwriters are capable singers themselves, so it's often best to team up with people of differing and complementary talents. And why do you not think singing alone is creative? A singer can make or break a song with their interpretation.
As for the statement that most artists are in it for the money, I simply don't believe that is true.
Keepin it real Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Richard likes to keep it real :) After all we know a cover is very rarely better than the original, and singing someone elses song is a cover isnt it? :)
This is Reality Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Richard,
Your frustration with 'artists acting like clowns on stage' is somewhat valid, as I, too, want to hear the songs coming from the mouth of the songwriter - so i can relate to and respect that artist. However, this is entertainment, and as a consumer, I want to be entertained. If you relate it to another form of entertainment - film - Pop artists are like Actors, and songwriters are like script writers. And even if she's terrible, I'd much rather see Jessica Alba on screen than the overweight, bearded screen writer who wrote her part.
And beyond that, when we look at Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, and even Ke$ha, we see actual songwriters performing their own songs. Not to mention the countelss bands (Mumford & Sons, Muse, etc.) that do nothing but perform their own songs.
So maybe it's time you start complaining about Ticketmaster prices, instead.
Keepin it real Thursday, August 11, 2011
If your looking for sexual stimulation there are other outlets for that :)
If removing all the "actors" from the world stage leaves us with more truth, then that's probably a good thing isnt it? :)
Coffeecup Thursday, August 11, 2011
Not even worth a comment ...
jera denny Friday, August 12, 2011
the real (because you asked for it): www.jeradenny.com
David Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Though I can understand the labels concern on shrinking revenues from physical sales, one has to ask:
which countries do they see where physical sales are rising? Or even stable? As far as I can see, the sum total of music revenues / market value has risen in the countries where Spotify has got a good hold on the market.
In it's native country (Sweden), the market is more or less dependant on Spotify, and labels (and artists, one might add) are happy about the growth.
coffeecup Thursday, August 11, 2011
"...dependant on Spotify ..." ??????? Is that a joke ??
@GeorgeDearing Wednesday, August 10, 2011
George Dearing
"Physical sales are dropping drastically in all countries where Spotify is active"
Keepin it real Thursday, August 11, 2011
"The income streams to the artists are affected massively and therefore that accelerates the downward spiral"
Don't forget this bit :)
@musicVault Wednesday, August 10, 2011
musicVault
Do we think more indies will follow?
@InsideThePain Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Pain of Salvation FR
PoS, Oceansize ... En streaming, c'est fini
OldRecordGuy Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Hey, we're a label that exclusively handles acts that are required to have lots of hair and no sense of irony. As such, we rarely get mentioned in the press - our CEO could commit suicide by sewing Katie Couric into his lower intestine and nobody would notice.
Wait, we've got an idea: let's take a giant, leathery dump on a music service that everyone is excited about, and purely by being contrary, we'll actually get some attention! Never mind the fact that our sub-Spinal Tap roster's music is consumed primarily by an audience raised on file sharing, kids who would sooner spend $9.99 on a subscription to Boy's Life than EVER buy a record on iTunes. Never mind the fact that it would be easier to find D.B. fucking Cooper than it would be to find a record store that actually carries Century's CDs in 99% of America.
Question: how many times over the past five years has DMN ran a story about Century Media?
Negative attention works, at least in terms of getting press. Points for figuring that one out.
But guess what, Century? People think most music isn't worth their time and attention, let alone their money. The transaction between a potential fan and an act will almost never be a financial one, attention, not money, changes hands. You're a record label, a.k.a, you're fucked (and you're a metal/punk label, which means you're fucked worse). Music as a product is worth a fraction of what it used to be, consumer attention has never been more valuable. Spotify makes it easier for people to pay attention (listen) to your acts. Your mistake is in thinking the music product is where the money is, of course, because you're a label.
BTW, thanks for making it easier for me to not accidentally listen to one of your bands on Spotify.
Food For Thought... Wednesday, August 10, 2011
I can't wait to go to the bank today and see what they say when I ask to withdraw some attention from my account. I'll then run right over to my landlord and tell him that September's rent is going to be paid in attention.
"attention, not money, changes hands". And, what may I ask, is going to compel anyone to ever invest money or time into helping artists get attention if there is no money? For the handful of uber-acts that can generate a living from attention (via brand associations or whatever), great. What do you propose for all of the others? My guess would be either (a) too bad for you or (b) you'll do just fine asking fans for handouts, selling 8 t-shirts a month, and offering silly come ons like dinner with the highest bidder on my Sellaband offering. Great. Shoot me now.
I am more positive about Spotify than Century Media but I do applaud them for continuing to fight for the value of music. Just because today music's value seems to be next to nil doesn't mean that is the way it must be.
OldRecordGuy Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Attention = listens. Listens = performance royalties. Performance royalties = $$.
If we could go back 15 years and have no CD burners, no www, no Napster, no Pirate Bay, then OK, music as a product would still have value. CD sales aren't down because of Spotiify, that's fucking ludicrous. They're down because CDs are considered to be almost worthless by everyone on Planet Earth - except record labels.
Question: how many CD's did you buy last month? Or paid for a full album download from iTunes?
Question: in the same month, how many times did you watch a YouTube video or stream a track online?
You didn't spend money on the streams, you spent TIME. Your Attention. Which, btw, generates income for the artist. Not as much as would be considered ideal, albeit.
it is a hilarious assertion that most artists make their money from album sales, especially CD's. There are endless stories of acts that sold 1 million records, only to end up owing the label money. It is also really ingorant to equate Spotify with piracy on any level.
Artists primarily make their money from publishing, performance rights, ticket sales and licensing. Getting as many people as possible to listen to your music is a good thing for an artist, and a smart act/manager/label understands that this is where to focus revenue generation efforts - NOT trying to save a dying format by embarking on some pointless Quixotian quest to rescue the value of music.
Music hasn't lost any value, music PRODUCTS have lost almost ALL their value. If millions of people are listening to your music, you're generating incremental revenue from the streaming services that licensed your content. Those people will see your shows, buy your merch and a smart manager or label can walk that data into a sponsorship or licensing deal that will generate the artist a lot more money than record sales ever would.
Century asserts that baby bands need to sell music to survive; the question is, who spends money on music from acts they haven't heard of? Baby bands have NEVER made money from CD sales if they're signed to a label. Baby bands should worry about getting someone to listen to their music, because there are 100,000 other acts out there competing with them.
If the release said "we recognize that streaming is the future (well, really, the present) of music consumption, but we're not happy with Spotify's rates for streaming. We have deals with other streaming companies (Rhapsody) that we feel are more fair, and will consider dealing with Spotify if their rates come up to par with the rest of the market" then OK, fair enough.
But to blame Spotify for the reduction of physical CD sales just shows how absolutely clueless Century is. Spotify has just launched in the US, Borders is closing, and Best buy has reduced CD floorspace by about 80%. Is this Spotify's fault?
Clueless.
Food For Thought... Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Performance royalties are great. Do you know who pays performance royalties, Old Record Guy? It isn't YouTube, I can tell you that. Performance royalties, in the U.S. (when speaking about performing artists and master owners) are ONLY paid by non-terrestrial, non-interactive broadcasters (which would include, for instance, Pandora, Sirius/XM, Music Choice, etc.). Performance royalites, according to SoundExchange, are likely in the area of $250-$300 million annually in the U.S. Nice money but nowhere near the replacement of lost sales revenues (U.S. = $15 billion in music sales in 2000 and just above $8 billion in 2010).
If "no one" is buying CDs as you assert, why do most independent labels report that between 30-50% of their revenues are coming from CD sales (still a very large percentage considering the difficulty that most indie labels have getting their CDs into retail)?
You also missed one very large income stream when listing where most artists get their income from: advances from labels. For MOST signed bands - which means those who get signed but then don't become big enough to generate sustainable income on the road, via merch, and via other smaller income streams - the advance they got (which then gets recouped against sales) is their biggest single income item. While it's true that advances are shrinking rapidly, that speaks directly to the point that Century is making: it hurts artists when fans think music (products) don't have value.
Getting angry at that message and/or the messanger - like so many do when they don't have all the facts of how artists REALLY make a living - only serves to hurt artists.
As a tangent reply to the commenter below who has read too many fanzine articles & taken them as gospel and therefore doesn't believe labels care about artists, I can't speak for major labels, but those of us who work at indie labels - like Century Media - don't do so because we're getting rich. We love the music we spend our lives working to market to fans and we love (most of) the artists who create that music in a far more tangible way than the fans who profess their love while downloading/burning/sharing free music. Don't believe me? See what happens when an artist - any artist - speaks out and shares his/her frustration at how his/her music is stolen ("shared"). You can bet the keyboard mob will eviscerate that artist, call him/her a dinosaur, and promote rampant downloading of his/her entire catalog as punishment for expressing his/her feelings.
Visitor Wednesday, August 10, 2011
I respectfully disagree. Spotify is out to screw the artists and labels. Their talking points to the labels is that once they have a near monopoly they will screw Spotify customers ie raise prices. The labels appear to have bought into this monopoly pipe dream sold to them by Sean Parker, aka illegal Napster founder aka close advisor to Spotify aka Spotify investor.
Music discovery can easily be accomplished on iTunes. Spotify is far from a monopoly on music discovery. Spotify will never get close to 50 million active users in the USA as they are projecting, anytime in the future.
If you want kids to buy music, control piracy through effective and reasonable legislation and enforcement. Operating an ISP does not give the right to freely allow illegal activity such as music theft.
You seem to be spreading the myth that music theft is acceptable behaviour or offering unlimited music for free is an efficient business model.
Spotify has nothing special to offer to artists and labels. They are no longer authorized to sell my music or use my album art or tracking list to promote Spotify yet they continue to do so.
If you are truly a label, then you would know that music sales are important for both the artists and labels.
Regards,
Yves Villeneuve
jbedbus Wednesday, August 10, 2011
I just can't take it seriously when a label comes out in supposed support of Artists' rights and revenue. It was all good when the industry was screwing the artists, but now that the industry is being affected they're indignant. Truly comical.
e Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Find me an unsigned indie band with a marketing budget and contacts at press outlets, radio, music festivals, retail outlets and DSP's and I'll try to understand why labels aren't essential to the survival of artists.
Old Record Guy Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Labels might be essential to the success of artists, but most certainly, physical product is not. Which seems to be the main reason Century is bagging on Spotify (that it is responsible for the decline of CD sales)
Keepin it real Thursday, August 11, 2011
"The income streams to the artists are affected massively and therefore that accelerates the downward spiral"
Mmmm they seem to be talking about much more than CD sales :)
Century Media Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Century supports an excellent roster of Metal bands.They are just trying to defend their Artists intellectual property's rights and revenue streams from CD's and downloads. I think their move to samplers from full length songs is smart and will encourage downloads and purchases of the full length physical versions.
Unlike Apple who is currently suing Samsung for loss of revenue from stealing their intellectual property and having Samsung products removed from the market place, artists and record labels have no real recourse when their intellectual property is stolen and revenue streams decimitated.
Government digital copyright legislation is ajoke and the ISP's could care less.
Spotify and its users needs to cough up with more cash for the streams to help offset the losses - period.
@bgmlaw Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Brette G. Meyers
more indies to follow? Time will tell
Time is telling Friday, August 12, 2011
According to hypebot.com - "contemporary classical and jazz label Mode Records (Cage, Feldman, Xenakis, others) has joined the anti-Spotify chorus"
David Parker Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!
I'm with you.
logicbox Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Spotify/streaming is awesome for consumers and aggregated rights holders. Blavatnik should buy EMI too ... But it completely sucks for artists.
wallow-T Thursday, August 11, 2011
Labels such as this have a powerful message to sell to music fans:
"You're better off if you listen to less music!"
(I've posted this way too many times.)
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us