Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Thom Yorke blasts Spotify


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15-07-2013, 12:42
gold2040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,576

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...potify-twitter

Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify, complaining that "new artists get paid f*ck all with this model".

Yorke and producer Nigel Godrich took to Twitter to express their annoyance at the business model for new artists, and explain their reasoning.

"The numbers don't even add up for Spotify yet. But it's not about that. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable," Godrich, whose production credits include albums for Radiohead and Paul McCartney, tweeted. "Meanwhile small labels and new artists can't even keep their lights on. It's just not right."

He continued: "Streaming suits [back] catalogue. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists' work. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. [Streaming services] have no power without new music.
gold2040 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 15-07-2013, 14:05
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
I'm very surprised how Spotify has taken off as it's always been a crap deal for artists.

As it is, if I were an artist I wouldn't want unlimited streaming. I would want it limited to a certain number of plays per user. The way some artists stream a new album free for a week before release (on a website or soundcloud etc.) is also a good idea imo. As streaming doesn't really pay I would only use it to allow people to preview the music for a limited time. If they don't pay for it after that they were probably never going to anyway.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 20:20
Daveoc64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bristol (BBC1 West)
Posts: 14,871
The way I see it, even if the royalties are not good for artists, getting a pittance from me is better than the nothing that they were getting before Spotify.
Daveoc64 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 20:58
afcbfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,805
Originally Posted by Thom Yorke
Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid
They won't? So, King Charles, Beth Jeans Houghton, Taffy, The History of Apple Pie and The Lovely Eggs, for example - all of whom I discovered on Spotify - won't get paid? Well, that doesn't seem right at all. I've bought all their CDs and gone to see them live and they're not getting any of my money?! That's a scandal! Where the hell is it going?!
afcbfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 21:23
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
The way I see it, even if the royalties are not good for artists, getting a pittance from me is better than the nothing that they were getting before Spotify.
That would be fine if it's only illegal downloaders (who never buy any music) using the system. But the royalties are so pathetic that it's not worth losing potential sales over (especially for smaller/newer/less well known artists).

They won't? So, King Charles, Beth Jeans Houghton, Taffy, The History of Apple Pie and The Lovely Eggs, for example - all of whom I discovered on Spotify - won't get paid? Well, that doesn't seem right at all. I've bought all their CDs and gone to see them live and they're not getting any of my money?! That's a scandal! Where the hell is it going?!
Streaming for a limited time as a try before you buy makes sense. I'm pretty sure it's the business model of unlimited streaming with a tiny amount given to artists that Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich aren't happy with.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 22:24
Amanda_Raymond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 604
That would be fine if it's only illegal downloaders (who never buy any music) using the system. But the royalties are so pathetic that it's not worth losing potential sales over (especially for smaller/newer/less well known artists).


Streaming for a limited time as a try before you buy makes sense. I'm pretty sure it's the business model of unlimited streaming with a tiny amount given to artists that Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich aren't happy with.
You buy a track off itunes, you play it hundereds of time but the artist only get's money for the single time you bought it, where if you play that track hundreds of times of spotify they earn money for everytime you play it, but they should probably earn more
Amanda_Raymond is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 23:03
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
You buy a track off itunes, you play it hundereds of time but the artist only get's money for the single time you bought it, where if you play that track hundreds of times of spotify they earn money for everytime you play it, but they should probably earn more
There's also the issue of a tiny trickle of money over a long period of time not really being that helpful to artists in terms of being able to pay today's bills. Streaming could be an additional revenue stream for artists but it needs to pay more than Spotify are giving or it risks doing more harm than good imo.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 23:11
ashtray88
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,176
So, King Charles, Beth Jeans Houghton, Taffy, The History of Apple Pie and The Lovely Eggs, for example - all of whom I discovered on Spotify - won't get paid?
Wow, those are some great/random band names.
ashtray88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 23:28
afcbfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,805
To be honest, 3,800 for a million listens seems quite decent to me. I think Radio 1 pay about 60 for the same number.
afcbfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 23:30
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
To be honest, 3,800 for a million listens seems quite decent to me. I think Radio 1 pay about 60 for the same number.
No, just....no.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2013, 23:34
afcbfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,805
100?
afcbfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 00:13
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
I said no because Spotify isn't really comparable to the radio when you think about it.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 00:49
afcbfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,805
I think it's exactly like the radio; that's how I use it. Only not the dire music radio in this country, no; rather the greatest, most eclectic radio station in the world.
afcbfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 01:11
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
I think it's exactly like the radio; that's how I use it. Only not the dire music radio in this country, no; rather the greatest, most eclectic radio station in the world.
As I said, the unlimited service is the issue and that's clearly not like the radio..
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 01:57
Amanda_Raymond
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 604
I think the labels need to work stuff out with the bands as well, labels like streaming services, sony have their own one.

PIAS have their own spotify app and I think Warners and Domino both have one as well
Amanda_Raymond is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 02:20
Eric_Blob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,968
I'm very surprised how Spotify has taken off as it's always been a crap deal for artists.

As it is, if I were an artist I wouldn't want unlimited streaming. I would want it limited to a certain number of plays per user. The way some artists stream a new album free for a week before release (on a website or soundcloud etc.) is also a good idea imo. As streaming doesn't really pay I would only use it to allow people to preview the music for a limited time. If they don't pay for it after that they were probably never going to anyway.
Yeah. Most artists signed to major labels are told not to advertise Spotify on things like Twitter, etc, because the royalty rates are so low. They always link to iTunes because they make more money out of that.

But I'm not surprised Spotify has taken off, it's not a great deal for the artist, but it's a great deal for normal people. To legally download all the songs I like, it would've cost me hundreds and hundreds a year. I don't have that money, especially as a child, when you rely on your parents for money. It was a huge struggle to get just a few pounds from my parents most of the time, and it's the same with a lot of children, how on Earth can they download music legally, if they get such a limited amount of money from their parents each month, which they'd prefer to save up for a new video game, or use to go to the cinema with their friends.

But my Spotify subscription is 5 a month (because I'm a student). I can afford that.
Eric_Blob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 02:42
sjp07
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,036
To be honest, 3,800 for a million listens seems quite decent to me. I think Radio 1 pay about 60 for the same number.
YouTube used to only pay $1,000(662.08) for a million views a few years back. Since the US official chart counts streaming now, Spotify is doing more favors for artists than not. Personally, I like Pandora better since I don't have to pay in order to use the mobile version, unlike Spotify.
sjp07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 04:13
Makson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,609
Spotify isn't free though. I pay 10 euro monthly for my subscription but totally worth it to be able to play songs offline on my phone.
Makson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 11:37
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
But I'm not surprised Spotify has taken off, it's not a great deal for the artist, but it's a great deal for normal people.
What I'm surprised about is how it's grown in terms of it's library size and the number of artists on there with little opposition or publicity about how it's not actually a good thing for artists because they get so little money out of it. When it started and this was already being talked about I thought there was a chance that more artists would be removed or refuse to be on there and the service could struggle to take off.

I suppose that many artists don't actually have a choice and once the labels see that they can make money by taking a nice chunk of the pie then it was always going to thrive.

As always with these arguments it's a matter of fairness towards all artists. Most people will look at how well the top selling artists are doing and how things like this doesn't really affect them and so think it can't be a much of a problem. For most artists millions of streams is pie in the sky stuff so getting paid fairly for the much smaller amounts they generate is much more important for them.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-07-2013, 13:59
calico_pie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,209
To be honest, 3,800 for a million listens seems quite decent to me. I think Radio 1 pay about 60 for the same number.
To be fair, that's a bit different, in that R1 pays per play, not per listener. So they pay about 60 every time they play something to the PRS, which is split between the record company, writers and artists.

The 60 per million listens is a bit misleading if millions of people are listening when its played, which isn't the case with Spotify.
calico_pie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 12:03
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 6,690
I'm very surprised how Spotify has taken off as it's always been a crap deal for artists.

As it is, if I were an artist I wouldn't want unlimited streaming. I would want it limited to a certain number of plays per user. The way some artists stream a new album free for a week before release (on a website or soundcloud etc.) is also a good idea imo. As streaming doesn't really pay I would only use it to allow people to preview the music for a limited time. If they don't pay for it after that they were probably never going to anyway.
But then it cuts both ways.

As someone who prefers to own CDs rather than stream music i have discovered a lot of bands through Spotify that I would have never have heard of without Spotify and, as a consequence, purchased their CDs.
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 12:50
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
But then it cuts both ways.

As someone who prefers to own CDs rather than stream music i have discovered a lot of bands through Spotify that I would have never have heard of without Spotify and, as a consequence, purchased their CDs.
I've already said I think streaming is a good idea both on Spotify and elsewhere in terms of allowing people to try before they buy but I think that streaming should be limited. It's the model of allowing unlimited streaming coupled with really low royalties to artists that isn't a good thing imo.
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 19:36
DaisyBumbleroot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 22,905
I have spotify premium and Ive discovered SO much new music via the app that I would never have heard and albums by artists i may have heard of but would not bother buying their album - and as a direct result Ive paid money to go to see those bands lve and bought merch while Im there. Also, I have collaborative playlists with friends and my music appears in my facebook news feed, where others pick up on what im listening to and I with them
Devin Townsend, Clutch, Airbourne, Gogol Bordello (well december), Steel Panther are a handful of artists Ive spent money on, and they probably have received a lot more that they would had i just bought a crappy cd.

So if Thom Yorke wants to cut his nose of to spite his face thats up to him, most other bands probably appreciate the indirect promotion.
DaisyBumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 19:47
Smudged
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,168
^^ 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?
Smudged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2013, 19:54
afcbfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,805
Unlimited streaming is such a boon, though. Without it I'd have to have the CDs by the PC, and then shift it to open the door to play them. What a pain in the a*rse that'd be.
afcbfan is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:35.