Introducing Lyynks Music, an Ethical Alternative to Spotify…

  • Save

The following statement comes from the founders of Lyynks Music, an LA-based startup that hopes to replace unethical and extremely artist-unfriendly problems associated with Spotify.  Lyynks is currently in pre-release alpha, and accepting invites (more details below).

“Some of the music industry’s most masterful minds – including Radiohead’s Thom Yorke and the Talking Heads’ David Byrne – say Spotify and similar streaming services are not viable. As a source of income for anyone less famous or popular than Daft Punk, that’s pretty much true.

The chief problem is that most of the revenue generated from these services, even paid services like iTunes, is feeding elite labels and publishers, not artists creating the content. According to some musicians, many of the problems arise from outdated contracts.

“Our contract is all based on old technology” said during a Virgin-curated event held Monday that gathered musicians, managers and technology firms to debate music/tech disruption. “An album is 12 songs, because that’s how much information fit on a record … If you’re complaining about this music industry, let’s go back down to the contract.”

The Black Eyed Peas member mentioned that “I Gotta Feeling” is “still the number one downloaded song of all time on iTunes,” yet he still makes more from his investment in Beats headphones.

“If you’re going to complain about somebody else’s system, you need to sit down with somebody who can create your own system,” he said. “It’s not hard to create systems nowadays.”

Amanda Palmer, another participating artist, then suggested that the creation of such a system shouldn’t necessarily be up to the artist.

“There are a lot of artists out there that don’t wanna be technological warriors … they don’t want to create a whole new fucking platform, they just want to make music,” she said. ”For the many, many, many artists who don’t necessarily want to delve into the tech business and engage in this way, my question is what about them?”

At that point, cellist Zoe Keating chimed in: “I’d like to work with music services to try to make the ecosystem of the future, so call me up!”

Well,, Zoe, Amanda … Lyynks Music wants your number.

Our service allows various musical partners – including artists, managers, record labels, venues and festivals – to communicate their vision to our team of expertly trained industry professionals and designers in order to create a full customized channel integrated with our free mobile app – no tech experience required to develop a sleek online portal.

The channel functions almost like a website/social media center combo where partners can post news/blog items, stream music and sell content – including audio, video, merchandise and concert tickets – at prices they set.

The biggest factor setting Lyynks Music apart from any other similar app is the revenue share for partners. Whereas a service like Spotify pays out a fraction of a penny per stream, artists, labels or managers can expect the overwhelming majority of revenue when they stream or sell content through our app.

Lyynks Music, accepting requests for invite now before launching in early 2014, addresses a few more key concerns mentioned in Monday’s debate.

“At what point in time does Vevo pay for the content that gives you the ability to put commercials that we don’t want before our content?” asked. “And if we did want it, can we choose what brands come before or after our content when I’m the one paying for the video? It’s a very very very very touchy subject which is not being talked about.”

Lyynks Music is ready and willing to talk about it – one of our primary goals is helping our channel creators to establish and manage an imaginative and functioning brand that doesn’t rely on invasive, outside advertising.

Justin Bieber’s manager Scooter Braun, also present at the debate, made this remark:

“Here’s the deal: we can say we want things to be better, we want things to change, and we’ll get there.  But we have to realize that the consumer and the listener dictates what happens.”

That’s exactly right. While supporting Braun’s further point that “the most important thing is that all artists have a voice” – giving musicians a way to Broadcast Their Passion – Lyynks Music includes an enormous fan component.

Fans using the app on any web-accessible device, from a desktop computer to smartphone, can “Lyynk Up” with channels, giving them access to playlists, tour information, music news, an option to contact artists, related recommendations and other exclusive features.

With both the artist and fan sides of the coin included, Lyynks’ comprehensive feature set eliminates the headache of keeping up with multiple social media sites and apps (who wants to juggle Bandcamp, Spotify and Songkick daily?), creating a gratifying experience of Music Beyond Sound anytime, any place.

Check out our website ( for more information or to connect for an early invite!


The Team at Lyynks Music.”

19 Responses

  1. Me

    Sounds good for artists, but how are they going to convince consumers that their service is better than Spotify/iTunes/etc? What’s the consumer’s motivation to download the app?

    Also this services seems to be anti-big label, which will probably keep major labels from putting their music on the site, which would be a huge detractor for someone looking to unseat services with a gargantuan catalog.

  2. catalog?

    So exactly how will they get all of the albums that are EXCLUSIVELY controlled by WMG, UMG, Sony and all the labels represented by other distributors like Orchard, etc…? Why would anyone use this service? To play Zoe Keating and Atoms for Peace and a few thousand unsigned bands? Sounds like a winner!

  3. Champion

    Spotify pays out 70% of their revenue to labels. It’s exactly the same rate as iTunes.

    • anony

      Itunes pays 70% to every single rights holder. Spotify’s pays different rates depending on who they are dealing with. They pay a different rate to Merlin than to Warner. So 70% of their revenue might be paid to rights holders, but not to ALL rights holders.

  4. Anonymous

    “An advertisement promoting the interests or opinions of a corporate sponsor, often presented in such a way as to resemble an editorial.”

    • Paul Resnikoff

      a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

  5. GGG

    Could be good, might as well see how it goes, you never know.

    In terms of being an ethical alternative, if I stream a song on here, how much does the artist get paid?

  6. jw

    Lyynk up? lol.

    It’s clear how these guys drummed up their capital, they clearly have the language down. What artist is having to “juggle” Spotify as part of some arduous daily routine? And how exactly are you going to help content creators “create and manage” an “imaginative” brand?

    This just sounds like a bunch of unicorns & rainbows.

    Newsflash: A distribution company has no say whatsoever in the split between artists & labels, that stuff is agreed to in contracts between label & artist. Any distribution company that says they can affect an artist’s cut of revenue is full of shit (and probably plenty of venture capital, to boot).

    This sounds like a Topspin/MySpace hybrid, I don’t know how anyone could mistake this as an alternative to Spotify. There’s nothing in this snake oil sales pitch that addresses any of the real problems that artists & streaming services face, which is namely leverage.

    The bottom line is that Spotify has to pay labels what they require in order to remain in operation (same as any other streaming company), & they’re paying the labels sizable chunks of revenue, but it’s ultimately up to artists to renegotiate their contracts with the labels if they want a bigger piece of the pie. The labels have set up a situation where they dictate the terms, & have made it impossible for a streaming service to have a worktable catalog & operate legally & make artists happy at the same time. And it’s not because of Spotify’s business model, it’s because of the split between labels & artists (which the artist agreed to at some point).

      • jw

        What’s interesting is that this is totally a play to artists. Which makes total sense, because they’ll make their money by charging artists to use their premium features. It “doesn’t rely on invasive, outside advertising” because the artists are PAYING for the feature of having their songs streamed. But that’s a revenue stream that you’re taking off the table, if you’re an artist, unless you want to charge users to stream your songs (paying Lyynks for payment processing, I’m sure), & good luck with that.

        It sounds like they’re just trying to reinvent Topspin as a social network. But the artists are going to have to build the community. Why would a fan go to a band’s Lyynks page over a Bandcamp, or a Reverb Nation, or MySpace or SquareSpace or Virb or whatever page? There’s nothing new here. Nothing being offered to entice the fan. They just want to build up a paying subscriber base of artists.

        Which is fine. There’s no demonstrated need for it, but whatever. Only the “revolutionary” sounding marketing is downright offensive. Obviously investors fall for it, but I have no use for the condescension.

  7. What would Digital Music News do?

    If Paul Resnikoff gets the management rights of Spotify tomorrow, what would Paul Resnikoff change?

    -higher royalties? pay 80% instead of 70%
    -increase the $10 price to $15?
    -get rid of ad-supported streaming?

    It’s easy to bash Spotify but it’s much harder to come up with ways to make Spotify much better for labels/artists/songwriters/users.

    I wonder if Paul Resnikoff would reply.

    • Paul Resnikoff

      Well you throw a bait out that like, how could I resist?

      But what is, ‘gets the management rights,’ exactly? So, I’m Daniel Ek tomorrow, is that it? Let’s make this an actual, feasible scenario here. Because depending on what level of power I have, I’d execute different changes.

      • What would Digital Music News do?

        You own 51% of Spotify therefore you have complete control of Spotify management.

        What would you change?

  8. forcemm

    Paul, I’m rarely critical of your writing and don’t think you’re as biased as some readers claim. With that said, how can you call this a startup when it’s actually a distressed publicly traded company?

    • GGG

      Your company could make soap and as long as you attack Spotify in a press release you’ll get an article on DMN.

    • Not Clear

      Who are the Lyynks Music founders from whom the above statement apparently comes? According to previous public filings on this penny stock, does not appear to be the artists mentioned above.

    • Paul Resnikoff

      This is why I love this publication: the story is never finished, to be honest I hadn’t dug this far (hate to admit). If there’s a missing piece, glaring error, or even smaller error, increasingly the readers of DMN find it, expose it, etc. Keep going.

  9. Jared

    Paul, I love this place but this story shouldn’t have gotten the space on DMN that it did.

  10. Habib

    This app will never happen. That rights a whole bunch of “unicorns & rainbows” Tried to connect for an invite and got a 404 error. Investors beware the guy that behind this was the producer of “The Wedding Planner”… Jlo’s biggest flop ever.