I think to understand where Yorke and Godrich are coming from on this you need to consider Spotify as a rental service as that's really what it amounts to for most people and remember they're talking about new artists/content. Yes there are benefits from the exposure and some people buying after trying but that doesn't mean there are no financial negatives (i.e. lost sales) and it doesn't mean artists should be paid peanuts either. It's entirely possible for the negatives to outweigh the positives or for the business model to not be suitable for new artists who would rather be paid sooner rather than later so it's actually financially viable for them to keep making music.
If you compare it to other digital rental services such as for film/TV, there's a good (and very obvious) reason why new films/TV shows don't go straight onto Netflix/Lovefilm Instant at the same time as being released to cinema or on Blu-ray/DVD.
By that calculation, then, Daft Punk would have recieved £2,458,437.16 for the Get Lucky radio edit alone, plus another £776,238.16 for the normal edit.
Thom Yorke needs to stop whinging and make some songs more people want to listen to.
By that calculation, then, Daft Punk would have recieved £2,458,437.16 for the Get Lucky radio edit alone, plus another £776,238.16 for the normal edit.
Thom Yorke needs to stop whinging and make some songs more people want to listen to.
lol, I give up. Maybe read the details of the story instead of reacting to the headline? Or not.....
edit: Also, your numbers look way out. No way has the radio edit of Get Lucky been streamed 614 million times on Spotify already.
Thom Yorke strikes me as an idiot, "Spotify looks after shareholders before bands!"
No shit, it's a bloody business not a hippy commune, it exists purely as means of making money. And that's what a CEO's job is, to make money for the shareholders. If he didn't, he'd be fired, and they'd hire somebody who did...
Thom Yorke strikes me as an idiot, "Spotify looks after shareholders before bands!"
No shit, it's a bloody business not a hippy commune, it exists purely as means of making money. And that's what a CEO's job is, to make money for the shareholders. If he didn't, he'd be fired, and they'd hire somebody who did...
It's about dividing the spoils/paying people more fairly. You know, how in "normal" business there's a minimum wage. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with big companies in this country paying people something like 50p an hour. Or maybe you would....:eek::D.
ps. it's just an analogy, I know you can't have a minimum wage when it comes to music .
Yay, let's turn this thread into how many records Radiohead have sold or how big Thom Yorke's bank balance is and just ignore the point being made. If you've got an issue with Yorke then concentrate on what other people like Nigel Godrich are saying.
Yay, let's turn this thread into how many records Radiohead have sold or how big Thom Yorke's bank balance is and just ignore the point being made. If you've got an issue with Yorke then concentrate on what other people like Nigel Godrich are saying.
Oh dear, here we go. Someone stated Radiohead are one of the biggest bands on the planet and I responded (correctly) in the negative (which clearly irked you in some way). It's a discussion forum, and last time I checked you wasn't a mod/owner of the site so as long as a poster doesn't break the rules of the forum a thread can basically go in whatever direction it takes. But my comment does actually link to what they are trying to do because it needs influence to succeed.
If you want me to comment on the thread's subject I would suggest Messrs Yorke and Godrich are entitled to their opinion and also entitled to take their music off Spotify if they so wish. I personally think they are like 2 King Canutes, though, and they haven't got the industry clout to affect a change in the way Spotify do business but time will tell, I guess. The reason record companies are in such a mess at the moment is instead of embracing the internet and attempting to find ways of making it pay for them they tried to take it on (after initially attempting to ignore it) - and lost, basically. Is it a co-incidence that Sean Parker is a leading light in Spotify? Now it's probably too late to change things no matter what some artist/s might think about the whole thing.
Music is overpriced anyway (even the majority of Radiohead's fans reportedly paid NOWT for In Rainbows ). THIS is what needs addressing, not trying to take on something that is now too huge to actually change now (the time has passed).
Oh dear, here we go. Someone stated Radiohead are one of the biggest bands on the planet and I responded (correctly) in the negative (which clearly irked you in some way).
No it irked me because it's completely irrelevant to the thread and it risks derailing it with people like you coming along and boring us all yet again with arguments about sales figures/popularity. It doesn't matter that Thom Yorke's already made his money by selling tens of millions of albums with Radiohead, it's irrelevant to whether Spotify is a good business model for new artists. And of course he can't change anything on his own but he is making a good point and drawing attention to a problem most people ignore so he hardly deserves criticism for it whether you like his music or not :rolleyes:.
Oh dear, here we go. Someone stated Radiohead are one of the biggest bands on the planet and I responded (correctly) in the negative (which clearly irked you in some way). It's a discussion forum, and last time I checked you wasn't a mod/owner of the site so as long as a poster doesn't break the rules of the forum a thread can basically go in whatever direction it takes. But my comment does actually link to what they are trying to do because it needs influence to succeed.
If you want me to comment on the thread's subject I would suggest Messrs Yorke and Godrich are entitled to their opinion and also entitled to take their music off Spotify if they so wish. I personally think they are like 2 King Canutes, though, and they haven't got the industry clout to affect a change in the way Spotify do business but time will tell, I guess. The reason record companies are in such a mess at the moment is instead of embracing the internet and attempting to find ways of making it pay for them they tried to take it on (after initially attempting to ignore it) - and lost, basically. Is it a co-incidence that Sean Parker is a leading light in Spotify? Now it's probably too late to change things no matter what some artist/s might think about the whole thing.
Music is overpriced anyway (even the majority of Radiohead's fans reportedly paid NOWT for In Rainbows ). THIS is what needs addressing, not trying to take on something that is now too huge to actually change now (the time has passed).
if anything the opposite is true, music is too cheap now.
if you can apparently stream unlimited numbers of songs for a tenner a month, it renders those songs fairly worthless. You can also stream music for free on there with adverts, which renders them even more worthless.
i remember, back in days of yore, paying up to £17 or £18 for cds. When I bought the White Album in 1994 it cost me £35 from Woolies. You can pick that album up for a third of that now (and its a best sounding version)
New release albums that would have been £13 or £14 20 Years ago are now never more than a tenner. Back catalogue albums, which would have been £17, are now cheap as chips, a couple of quid online and even only a fiver or so in HMV.
So music is cheaper than ever.
And that saving is coming out of someone's pocket, and I'd be willing to bet it wont be some company suit.
For a start I'd get rid of the free streaming. For a start it might get folk to buy music, and if they don't, no one is going to miss out as they're paying sod all anyway.
Free streaming is part of everything that's wrong in the world basically
Artists like Thom Yorke should stop moaning. It's about time musicans started working hard for their small fortunes by touring and playing live more often. Have you seen the prices alot of high profile musicans charge for a concert ticket?
Artists like Thom Yorke should stop moaning. It's about time musicans started working hard for their small fortunes by touring and playing live more often. Have you seen the prices alot of high profile musicans charge for a concert ticket?
For a start I'd get rid of the free streaming. For a start it might get folk to buy music, and if they don't, no one is going to miss out as they're paying sod all anyway.
Free streaming is part of everything that's wrong in the world basically
Yeah I think it devalues music even further. It just seems like a weird business strategy to me for new artists/music. Just because some people illegally download doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to gain/maximise sales before streaming it for basically nothing. As I said before you would never see films/TV shows being streamed at the same time as being released to watch/buy on other mediums.
Of course it's great for the consumer but I don't see why there can't be a delay before new stuff is streamed. With the shit load of music on there and being added to all the time it would still be a good service for the consumer.
Artists like Thom Yorke should stop moaning. It's about time musicans started working hard for their small fortunes by touring and playing live more often. Have you seen the prices alot of high profile musicans charge for a concert ticket?
Did you see how much Radiohead were charging for their last tour? :eek::eek: Not forgetting the THIRTEEN POUND PER TICKET BOOKING FEE.
it would be nice if some of that went to help new artists, but I don't know if it did.
Yeah I think it devalues music even further. It just seems like a weird business strategy to me for new artists/music. Just because some people illegally download doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to gain/maximise sales before streaming it for basically nothing. As I said before you would never see films/TV shows being streamed at the same time as being released to watch/buy on other mediums.
Of course it's great for the consumer but I don't see why there can't be a delay before new stuff is streamed. With the shit load of music on there and being added to all the time it would still be a good service for the consumer.
What happens with free streaming is that folk are going to grudge paying money for an CD or even a 80p track of iTunes. So those folk would probably be more inclined to illegally download.
I've got a pal who hasn't bought an album in years. All he uses is free Spotify. Its quite amusing watching him dart about towards the end of songs to skip the adverts, but at the same time bloody annoying that he wont buy an album.
He'll download an album illegally rather than buy it because his opinion of music has been devalued by the free Spotify service.
I would also say the £10 unlimited streaming thing is was too cheap. For unlimited access to pretty much every song ever I'd be valuing that a hell of a lot higher.
What happens with free streaming is that folk are going to grudge paying money for an CD or even a 80p track of iTunes. So those folk would probably be more inclined to illegally download.
I've got a pal who hasn't bought an album in years. All he uses is free Spotify. Its quite amusing watching him dart about towards the end of songs to skip the adverts, but at the same time bloody annoying that he wont buy an album.
He'll download an album illegally rather than buy it because his opinion of music has been devalued by the free Spotify service.
I would also say the £10 unlimited streaming thing is was too cheap. For unlimited access to pretty much every song ever I'd be valuing that a hell of a lot higher.
lol, yeah that is quite tragic . Thing is you don't own the music on Spotify so if they pull the plug he'll have no music to listen to :eek:. Suppose if that happens he'll go on a huge (illegal) downloading spree....
lol, yeah that is quite tragic . Thing is you don't own the music on Spotify so if they pull the plug he'll have no music to listen to :eek:. Suppose if that happens he'll go on a huge (illegal) downloading spree....
That's what gets me about the whole downloading thing, you're effectively buying air or mist. You're not buying anything. Apparently iTunes retains ownership of the file you pay for as well.
At least if I go to the shop to buy a record or a cd i have something in my hand that I've bought. Also with dvd, blu ray, hifi and laptops, i can play that cd anywhere in the house.
I can also put it on a phone or mp3 player and listen to it when I am out. So I'm in no way disadvantaged buy a copy of an album rather than downloading, other than having to go to a shop to buy it. Unless you're a lazy fat ass or completely Agoraphobic, I cant see how that's a problem
^^ and you could have sampled those artists without unlimited streaming if your intention is to buy music. How many times do you people actually need to listen to something before deciding if they want to own it?
I didn't say I streamed music, I have spotify premium which means I can download the songs to my PC and phone to listen to on the go, which is why I pay for it. I didn't say I actually bought any of the music either, I said I've bought merch and concert tickets. Still money going into the artists pocket as an indirect result of using spotify.
I didn't say I streamed music, I have spotify premium which means I can download the songs to my PC and phone to listen to on the go, which is why I pay for it. I didn't say I actually bought any of the music either, I said I've bought merch and concert tickets. Still money going into the artists pocket as an indirect result of using spotify.
I don't think that really changes anything as my argument was about unlimited access/listening (streamed or otherwise) and the payments to artists.
That's what gets me about the whole downloading thing, you're effectively buying air or mist. You're not buying anything. Apparently iTunes retains ownership of the file you pay for as well.
At least if I go to the shop to buy a record or a cd i have something in my hand that I've bought. Also with dvd, blu ray, hifi and laptops, i can play that cd anywhere in the house.
I can also put it on a phone or mp3 player and listen to it when I am out. So I'm in no way disadvantaged buy a copy of an album rather than downloading, other than having to go to a shop to buy it. Unless you're a lazy fat ass or completely Agoraphobic, I cant see how that's a problem
I'd be less worried about iTunes as it's a profitable operation run by one of the biggest and richest companies in the world. Spotify is more of a concern as I *think* there's still a question mark over the business model and how profitable it really is. But now that the major labels have bought a stake in Spotify it's probably not going to go anywhere. Whatever, I'm still someone who likes to own music and have my own library rather than renting it and having someone else storing the library.
I don't think that really changes anything as my argument was about unlimited access/listening (streamed or otherwise) and the payments to artists.
I wonder how many times I'll listen to my favourite artists tunes via spotify over the next 30 years
One track, each day, 0.4p, is £43.80 a LOT re than what a CD costs.
Say a cd costs £10 and it has 10 tracks, supposing the artist gets £1 per CD sold, that means they would only receive 10p per track, for the entire lifespan of the CD. For arguments sake even by buying it via the Internet, I would pay what 80p or something, how much of that goes to the artist?
Going back to one track working out at £43.80 a year, a cd with ten tracks on would end up being worth £438.
I wonder how many times I'll listen to my favourite artists tunes via spotify over the next 30 years
One track, each day, 0.4p, is £43.80 a LOT re than what a CD costs.
Say a cd costs £10 and it has 10 tracks, supposing the artist gets £1 per CD sold, that means they would only receive 10p per track. For arguments sake even by buying it via the Internet, I would pay what 80p or something, how much of that goes to the artist?
There are other issues you're not considering, one of which Thom Yorke was alluding to which is that getting paid very small amounts slowly over a long time is not very helpful with paying today's bills (you know, all the costs that need to covered today in order to make an album and allow you to make another album).
Also, in many cases not all of that 0.4p goes to the artist. Other parties like distributors and labels will be taking their cut.
Remember this argument is framed around new artists/music. Putting music on Spotify eventually, after it's had a decent chance of selling can be a good additional revenue stream for artists but it may not be such a good business model for new artists/content.
Comments
If you compare it to other digital rental services such as for film/TV, there's a good (and very obvious) reason why new films/TV shows don't go straight onto Netflix/Lovefilm Instant at the same time as being released to cinema or on Blu-ray/DVD.
By that calculation, then, Daft Punk would have recieved £2,458,437.16 for the Get Lucky radio edit alone, plus another £776,238.16 for the normal edit.
Thom Yorke needs to stop whinging and make some songs more people want to listen to.
edit: Also, your numbers look way out. No way has the radio edit of Get Lucky been streamed 614 million times on Spotify already.
You are aware Radiohead are one of the biggest bands on the planet right?
No shit, it's a bloody business not a hippy commune, it exists purely as means of making money. And that's what a CEO's job is, to make money for the shareholders. If he didn't, he'd be fired, and they'd hire somebody who did...
ps. it's just an analogy, I know you can't have a minimum wage when it comes to music
But it's been a long time since there done anything worth listening too, there early stuff upto "ok computer" was great, then they went all weird.
No they're not.
Oh dear, here we go. Someone stated Radiohead are one of the biggest bands on the planet and I responded (correctly) in the negative (which clearly irked you in some way). It's a discussion forum, and last time I checked you wasn't a mod/owner of the site so as long as a poster doesn't break the rules of the forum a thread can basically go in whatever direction it takes. But my comment does actually link to what they are trying to do because it needs influence to succeed.
If you want me to comment on the thread's subject I would suggest Messrs Yorke and Godrich are entitled to their opinion and also entitled to take their music off Spotify if they so wish. I personally think they are like 2 King Canutes, though, and they haven't got the industry clout to affect a change in the way Spotify do business but time will tell, I guess. The reason record companies are in such a mess at the moment is instead of embracing the internet and attempting to find ways of making it pay for them they tried to take it on (after initially attempting to ignore it) - and lost, basically. Is it a co-incidence that Sean Parker is a leading light in Spotify? Now it's probably too late to change things no matter what some artist/s might think about the whole thing.
Music is overpriced anyway (even the majority of Radiohead's fans reportedly paid NOWT for In Rainbows
if anything the opposite is true, music is too cheap now.
if you can apparently stream unlimited numbers of songs for a tenner a month, it renders those songs fairly worthless. You can also stream music for free on there with adverts, which renders them even more worthless.
i remember, back in days of yore, paying up to £17 or £18 for cds. When I bought the White Album in 1994 it cost me £35 from Woolies. You can pick that album up for a third of that now (and its a best sounding version)
New release albums that would have been £13 or £14 20 Years ago are now never more than a tenner. Back catalogue albums, which would have been £17, are now cheap as chips, a couple of quid online and even only a fiver or so in HMV.
So music is cheaper than ever.
And that saving is coming out of someone's pocket, and I'd be willing to bet it wont be some company suit.
For a start I'd get rid of the free streaming. For a start it might get folk to buy music, and if they don't, no one is going to miss out as they're paying sod all anyway.
Free streaming is part of everything that's wrong in the world basically
someone cant do maths its been 64.5 million times now not 614 million so that would be now 25800 pounds
and 21 million for the album version 8400 pounds
so only 34000 pounds
Bless 'im...he just loves blasting things.
Of course it's great for the consumer but I don't see why there can't be a delay before new stuff is streamed. With the shit load of music on there and being added to all the time it would still be a good service for the consumer.
Did you see how much Radiohead were charging for their last tour? :eek::eek: Not forgetting the THIRTEEN POUND PER TICKET BOOKING FEE.
it would be nice if some of that went to help new artists, but I don't know if it did.
http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/09/radiohead-tickets-for-uk-tour-branded-too-expensive-by-fans-on-twitter-346268/
What happens with free streaming is that folk are going to grudge paying money for an CD or even a 80p track of iTunes. So those folk would probably be more inclined to illegally download.
I've got a pal who hasn't bought an album in years. All he uses is free Spotify. Its quite amusing watching him dart about towards the end of songs to skip the adverts, but at the same time bloody annoying that he wont buy an album.
He'll download an album illegally rather than buy it because his opinion of music has been devalued by the free Spotify service.
I would also say the £10 unlimited streaming thing is was too cheap. For unlimited access to pretty much every song ever I'd be valuing that a hell of a lot higher.
That's what gets me about the whole downloading thing, you're effectively buying air or mist. You're not buying anything. Apparently iTunes retains ownership of the file you pay for as well.
At least if I go to the shop to buy a record or a cd i have something in my hand that I've bought. Also with dvd, blu ray, hifi and laptops, i can play that cd anywhere in the house.
I can also put it on a phone or mp3 player and listen to it when I am out. So I'm in no way disadvantaged buy a copy of an album rather than downloading, other than having to go to a shop to buy it. Unless you're a lazy fat ass or completely Agoraphobic, I cant see how that's a problem
Of course they are.
I didn't say I streamed music, I have spotify premium which means I can download the songs to my PC and phone to listen to on the go, which is why I pay for it. I didn't say I actually bought any of the music either, I said I've bought merch and concert tickets. Still money going into the artists pocket as an indirect result of using spotify.
I'd be less worried about iTunes as it's a profitable operation run by one of the biggest and richest companies in the world. Spotify is more of a concern as I *think* there's still a question mark over the business model and how profitable it really is. But now that the major labels have bought a stake in Spotify it's probably not going to go anywhere. Whatever, I'm still someone who likes to own music and have my own library rather than renting it and having someone else storing the library.
Oh God, please don't encourage him to bore us with sales and chart statistics :eek::D.
I wonder how many times I'll listen to my favourite artists tunes via spotify over the next 30 years
One track, each day, 0.4p, is £43.80 a LOT re than what a CD costs.
Say a cd costs £10 and it has 10 tracks, supposing the artist gets £1 per CD sold, that means they would only receive 10p per track, for the entire lifespan of the CD. For arguments sake even by buying it via the Internet, I would pay what 80p or something, how much of that goes to the artist?
Going back to one track working out at £43.80 a year, a cd with ten tracks on would end up being worth £438.
So it's not such a raw deal at all.
ETA
http://leviweaver.com/2013/02/14/what-does-an-indie-get-paid-4-spotify/ a new / unknown artists point of view
Also, in many cases not all of that 0.4p goes to the artist. Other parties like distributors and labels will be taking their cut.
Remember this argument is framed around new artists/music. Putting music on Spotify eventually, after it's had a decent chance of selling can be a good additional revenue stream for artists but it may not be such a good business model for new artists/content.