8 ms·

Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

84 points by balbaugh 13y ago

balbaugh 13y ago
This is only for Thom Yorke solo tunes, Atoms for Peace music from Thom and Nigel, and Nigel's side project Ultraista. The two make the argument that new music is hurt in the Spotify revenue equation. With the large stake of Spotify that is owned by the Majors and other large corporate entities such as Coca-Cola, it would be interesting if the 'independent labels' were to come out with some sort of streaming service of their own, whether it be on a label by label basis or on a combined level. Anyways, let's see what happens with this in the news cycle. Edit: Found an interesting Thom Yorke quote on his feelings about digital content: Radiohead have often riffed on the edge of that thoroughly modern disjunction. From their landmark album OK Computer on, the band seemed like evangelists for the revolutionary possibilities of a digital world, self-releasing 2007's In Rainbows on a pay-what-you-want download. Yorke is a bit more sceptical about all that now. In the days before we meet, he has been watching a box set of Adam Curtis's BBC series, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, about the implications of our digitised future, so the arguments are fresh in his head. "We were so into the net around the time of Kid A," he says. "Really thought it might be an amazing way of connecting and communicating. And then very quickly we started having meetings where people started talking about what we did as 'content'. They would show us letters from big media companies offering us millions in some mobile phone deal or whatever it was, and they would say all they need is some content. I was like, what is this 'content' which you describe? Just a filling of time and space with stuff, emotion, so you can sell it?" Having thought they were subverting the corporate music industry with In Rainbows, he now fears they were inadvertently playing into the hands of Apple and Google and the rest. "They have to keep commodifying things to keep the share price up, but in doing so they have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions. And this is what we want? I still think it will be undermined in some way. It doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. The commodification of human relationships through social networks. Amazing!"[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/23/thom-yorke-radiohead-interview http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/23/thom-yorke-radio...
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  This is only for Thom Yorke solo tunes, Atoms for Peace music from Thom and Nigel, and Nigel's side project Ultraista. The two make the argument that new music is hurt in the Spotify revenue equation. Dear Thom, I wish you had thought about this after you got very rich but before you decided that that made it a good idea of give away music for free. When lack of access to a reliable revenue model makes it difficult for build an audience for your own projects, the problem is primarily one of low return on your artistic endeavor. But for those who don't happen to be associated with an existing success such as Radiohead, that low return often means no prospect of making money at all. Whereas you can have the guitar amp of your choice or feel sure of an audience when you announce a gig, the lack of a revenue model for new music means many will never taste the leverage that you enjoy, with corresponding limitations on their musical development. This isn't all your fault, of course. But it might be good if you could devote some of your energy to finding a model that works for people without name recognition, eg by relying on your great musical talent but operating under a pseudonym while you search for new ways to sell it.
  - clicks 13y ago
    Did you read the article? Thom and Nigel seem to be lamenting new bands' inability to bring in money, they're not grieving about how they themselves don't make enough through Spotify.
- duaneb 13y ago
  > They have to keep commodifying things to keep the share price up, but in doing so they have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions. This strikes me as typical Luddite hysteria. Of course they still have worth, the commodified version is the same as the original, and people are getting the same thing they got when buying a cd. The barrier is just drastically lowered. I do agree on the commodification of human relationships, it's a fairly disgusting trend that I hope exhausts itself in the current social network form soon.
jmduke 13y ago
For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas that new artists are being trampled by Music 2.0 with success stories like Karmin and Chance the Rapper, who put out free material (via YouTube and a free mixtape, respectively) and the massive coverage launched them into the national spotlight. You know what would be awesome? A Flattr-esque system for music. You pay $XX/mo, can listen to whatever, and your money gets divvied up to artists based on play count. (if half of my play count in July comes from Blind Pilot, for instance, then they get half my money.)
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  $10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. And the ad revenue from a majority free user base for infinite access to all music ever created is definitely unreasonable. It's hard to argue with th connivence factor. However right now Spotify is destroying an existing model, not paying artists, and losing money hand over fist. It's lose/lose/lose. I'd rather consumers just pirate the music that way they at least know they aren't supporting the artists.
  - javajosh 13y ago
    > $10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. Why not? Most people go through a period of their life where they buy lots of albums, then they stop altogether. Flattening that out to be $10/month forever, divvied across artist based on content, would be a net win for everyone.
    - buster 13y ago
      Exactly.. or, i would say i never had a prolonged period in my life where i bought music for more then 10$/month.
  - 13y ago
josteink 13y ago
I wonder if artists who withdraw their music from services like this because they don't make "enough money" from them, realize they are getting paid again and again for me listening to albums I've already bought. You may not be getting paid in buckets and buckets of cash, but what you're getting is really just a freebie. You cannot complain about getting free money. If enough artists do this, services like Spotify will not offer me enough convenience, and the other option (simply mirroring my 100GB music collection to my work PC) will then be good enough that no artists stands to earn free money for albums I've already paid for. As far as Thom Yorke's argument goes: That artists are severely underpaid in the streaming-world, I'm not going to debate that or even oppose that. He probably knows better than me. But we've already established that this was a problem with the album-model as well. You have record companies taking $10 per album and the artist getting paid $1. With a $100,000 "credit" for studio-engineers to repay. It seems the only truth and rule in the music-industry is that the artist always gets screwed.
- illumen 13y ago
  I found a bunch of radio head CDs in a pile of rubbish.
- tzs 13y ago
  > I wonder if artists who withdraw their music from services like this because they don't make "enough money" from them, realize they are getting paid again and again for me listening to albums I've already bought I wonder how common that is? At least 90% of the things I listen to on Spotify are things that I have not bought on vinyl, CD, or any non-streaming online format.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    I think I'm about 70:30 stuff I already own to new stuff. Possibly even 80:20. This is probably because I have a huge music collection already, and I'm in my 30s and don't like you kids and your darned modern music so much any more. Music was so much better in my day, mumble mumble, get off my lawn etc etc.
biolime 13y ago
As a fan of both Radiohead and Spotify this makes me sad :(
hkmurakami 13y ago
I had no idea that individual artists had any say in this (thought that the mega labels determined the fate of everything related to their signed artists). Or are Yorke and Godrich's solo arrangements with the labels nonstandard, which makes this possible?
- quaunaut 13y ago
  From what I remember with Yorke and Radiohead, they're at a point where they have pretty much complete control. Whatever label they go with is just who they choose to do distribution.
- balbaugh 13y ago
  The Atoms for Peace project is on XL Recordings which is distributed by Beggars Group. Beggars Group gives all of their artists 50% of streaming revenues. Edit- One of many sources: http://www.factmag.com/2012/03/15/beggars-group-give-50-of-streaming-revenues-to-their-artists/ http://www.factmag.com/2012/03/15/beggars-group-give-50-of-s...
- carlio 13y ago
  Radiohead had a 6-album contract with EMI, but from In Rainbows onwards Radiohead were able to call the shots a bit more, hence being able to release it with a 'pay-what-you-want' model.[1] The article states that Radiohead's old stuff is still on Spotify, and that the albums removed were Thom Yorke's solo projects. So I imagine that EMI controls the first 6 albums, and so they are still on Spotify, while newer Radiohead content and Yorke's personal projects are more under his control. This isn't a typical arrangement for new artists, they only got that because they were a huge superstar band already. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Release
2pasc 13y ago
I have always wondered why Spotify does not raise their subscription fees (maybe after one year for example). If they asked me to pay more than $10/month, which seems a totally unreasonable number for everybody in this market, I would just do it because the convenience is awesome, and it is so much cheaper than any other legal alternatives for music lovers...
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I think they could certainly raise their prices in the US. Unless I'm mistaken it's cheaper there than anywhere else. e.g. In the UK it costs £9.99 which is just over $15. They could also differentiate their plans better and add in higher end ones. I think they would make more money and not impact consumers too badly if they charged for use. e.g. $5 per month for 20 songs per day. $10 per month for 40 songs per day. $20 per month unlimited.
  - 2pasc 13y ago
    Indeed - they could definitely do that.
lalos 13y ago
'New artists' always had it hard, I don't think it was easy to get your record printed and distributed all over the world, at least now people can find them easier with youtube, spotify and other services without a big risk (investment). If an artist is good, they will probably get viral (see Justin Bieber) and then earn all the big bucks like Thom and Nigel. Maybe I'm missing something else since I haven't read anything related to spotify in the last few weeks.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  It was certainly always hard to become a megastar, but it used to be a lot easier to put out a genre record (eg techno, drum'n'bass, jazz) because a well-run label had a pretty good sense of what would sell enough copies to turn a modest profit for everyone involved. An album that sold 4 or 5000 copies to a niche audience could make about 25k each for the artist and the label (record deals in genre music are generally a more equitable than major label ones). That's not a lot, but it's not terrible either, you could pay your rent with it. Nowadays you'd be lucky to sell 1000 copies, so small labels are correspondingly less willing to take a risk on unknown artists, and there are fewer labels with the expertise in distribution, marketing, and developing an artist's career than there used to be. If an artist is good, they will probably get viral Don't be absurd. Justin Bieber is talented, but he's also extremely attractive and happens to be proficient at the sort of music that appeals to teenage girls. That's a bit like expecting J. Random Developer to enjoy the same sort of success as Bill Gates, and concluding that if he doesn't it must be because he's no good as a programmer.
  - lalos 13y ago
    Well then maybe the way the market is only certain people can get paid that much (just like a random developer becoming the next Bill Gates). Also I said artist not musician, Bieber got to where he's at not for being a talented musician but for being an artist (attractive, catchy, etc).
liveinoakland 13y ago
i'm an avid spotify user (~4+ hours a day) and honestly have no idea how this is a sustainable business. how much are the 20+ artists a day that I listen to making from my $10 a month? genuinely don't understand how this is working. there are so many artists that come out with new albums that I would buy except for the fact that I can get them free on spotify. It's saving me probably 100-200/year and that's being conservative. That means it's costing artists that much * users. Why don't more artists take the Jay-Z approach? Build an app for your album, make people buy it, or sell it in bulk to a big brand like Samsung. This seems like a way for artists to take back the industry. Pirating music from a Jay-Z app seems much much harder than from a desktop. I think we're on the verge of a total shift back to the world of pre-CD burners where you simply had to pay 10-20 to listen to an album. What am I missing?
- hatu 13y ago
  God no!! Would you seriously want 50 different apps to listen to a different artist on your phone? I also listen to a lot of Spotify every day at work but I never used to buy albums before. I do buy shirts and concert tickets from my favorite smaller bands (and back them on Kickstarter). So I guess the math comes down to, are there more people like me who used to pay 0$ for albums and now pays 120$ a year or people like you who used to buy lots of albums before.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Pirating music from a Jay-Z app seems much much harder than from a desktop. There are already dozens of torrents with thousands of peers on The Pirate Bay. It doesn't really matter how hard it is, as long as a single individual can do it. I think we're on the verge of a total shift back to the world of pre-CD burners where you simply had to pay 10-20 to listen to an album. Before CD burners we had tapes. The logo of the music industry campaign against home taping is actually part of The Pirate Bay's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Before CD burners we had tapes. ...which were subject to generation loss. You had an incentive to buy albums you liked, because taping involved a loss of quality.
gamble 13y ago
The streaming-music business reminds me of Netflix in its early days, before movie studios became worried that it was cannibalizing rental/VOD revenue for new releases. There are a certain group of fans who are willing to pay $10-20 per album for access to music the moment it's released. With Spotify, those fans are treated like any other stream even though they're willing to pay more. It's inefficient pricing, except from Spotify's perspective as they're able to use immediate access to new release music as a lure for subscribers. So really, you can look at Spotify as capturing that demand and converting it into free advertising for themselves. I don't see that as sustainable in the long run. Some artists are already holding back new releases from streaming services. Like Netflix, I think that in the future you will see few new releases from popular artists until they've been available through premium services long enough to capture demand from hardcore fans. Spotify treats all songs as if they have equal value, but that's obviously not true from the listener's perspective. For any given person, there are going to be some songs that they're willing to pay a premium to hear, and some that they'll only listen to if it's free. Spotify is a good deal for the latter case, but not if it offers a discounted version of the former to people who could pay for it. Just because Spotify counts every stream as a single interchangeable unit of value doesn't mean that listeners value every stream equally.
- hatu 13y ago
  I think Spotify is in a great position right now, they are building up a huge userbase right now (first step for Facebook etc. too). But the service will monetize very well. For example I would pay extra per album to get to stream a couple albums on the day of their CD release just because it's convenient to have all my music in one application. Or charge me 15$ a month for a gold account and add a feature on the artist page to leave a 1$ tip. This extra 5$ goes into my "wallet" that I can then disperse straight to my favorite artists each month. Like a microtransaction.
moomin 13y ago
Could someone throw up a pie chart showing exactly how much of your $10 actually goes to an artist? I'm guessing you're going to need to make it pretty large for it to be even visible. Good on them.
- effn 13y ago
  A friend of mine with a record deal is getting more from a single album sale than he gets from 50K listens on spotify.
- balbaugh 13y ago
  List of links to data on payouts and more: http://musically.com/2013/02/13/streaming-music-screwing-artists/ http://musically.com/2013/02/13/streaming-music-screwing-art... (has info from artists, labels, economists, more.)
- glitchdout 13y ago
  This is from 2010 and does not directly answer your question, but maybe you'll find it interesting: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music...
henrik_w 13y ago
Avid Spotify-user here (paying about $15 a month in Sweden). I just wish they can work it out so the artists get paid fairly - it shouldn't be that hard, should it? On the topic of pirating as an alternative - it is just sooo nice not having to manage a bunch of MP3s. Playlists are just way more convenient.
netcan 13y ago
I may be wrong, but is seems like a central part of the complaint is that newly released/recorded music isn't getting a big enough piece of the pie. I'm not sure if this is just a trollish interpretation but it sounds like they are they asking for a return to the system where "this summer's new hits" get played relentlessly until everyone is sick of them and ready for "this year's christmas albums?" I understand the argument that sales of new music funds new albums getting recorded while new sales of Hotel California don't promote any kind of artistic work. That's a purely producer side perspective though. For a listener, there is a lot of recorded music that exists. Very little of the best stuff was recorded this year (or in any given year).
netcan 13y ago
Technology giveth, technology.. I think a great analogy is/was the porn industry. Every time a new technology made it big, the industry was turned upside down. Ferraris bought by new guys. Ferraris repossessed for others. Home VCRs created an industry that dwarfed adult cinemas. Selling DVDs over the internet was even better until streaming/download video killed that model. The porn industry collapsed and immediately started trying building a new economy on newer technology. How about interactive and realtime? Can that work? If it can, they'll figure it out pretty quick. No one takes an indignant pornographer seriously so the industry doesn't spend much energy being indignant. It just grows and shrinks as it can or has to. Thom and Nigel are great artists. I'm glad they're out there making music. But I'm a little turned off by the tone of their comments (now and at other times) it all rings of a feeling that the world owes them or (more often than not) younger artists a certain business model.
- duaneb 13y ago
  > No one takes an indignant pornographer seriously so the industry doesn't spend much energy being indignant. It just grows and shrinks as it can or has to. If only indignant moralistic artists were appropriately looked at as foolish. We live in a capitalist world, where the things sold are only limited by what they can give the customer. The artist loses the second they allow their music to be stored in a big, copy able file, and lose all value. Convenience is by far what drives my listening habits, so if you aren't on spotify, to me, might as well not exist (unless I pirate it.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lewisflude 13y ago
Someone once said that music is the only thing that you consume before purchasing.
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
Why can't Spotify follow the old VHS/Cinema model? If you want it today, you pay the premium. If you want to rent, you have to wait a bit longer.

84 points by balbaugh 13y ago

This is only for Thom Yorke solo tunes, Atoms for Peace music from Thom and Nigel, and Nigel's side project Ultraista. The two make the argument that new music is hurt in the Spotify revenue equation. With the large stake of Spotify that is owned by the Majors and other large corporate entities such as Coca-Cola, it would be interesting if the 'independent labels' were to come out with some sort of streaming service of their own, whether it be on a label by label basis or on a combined level. Anyways, let's see what happens with this in the news cycle. Edit: Found an interesting Thom Yorke quote on his feelings about digital content: Radiohead have often riffed on the edge of that thoroughly modern disjunction. From their landmark album OK Computer on, the band seemed like evangelists for the revolutionary possibilities of a digital world, self-releasing 2007's In Rainbows on a pay-what-you-want download. Yorke is a bit more sceptical about all that now. In the days before we meet, he has been watching a box set of Adam Curtis's BBC series, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, about the implications of our digitised future, so the arguments are fresh in his head. "We were so into the net around the time of Kid A," he says. "Really thought it might be an amazing way of connecting and communicating. And then very quickly we started having meetings where people started talking about what we did as 'content'. They would show us letters from big media companies offering us millions in some mobile phone deal or whatever it was, and they would say all they need is some content. I was like, what is this 'content' which you describe? Just a filling of time and space with stuff, emotion, so you can sell it?" Having thought they were subverting the corporate music industry with In Rainbows, he now fears they were inadvertently playing into the hands of Apple and Google and the rest. "They have to keep commodifying things to keep the share price up, but in doing so they have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions. And this is what we want? I still think it will be undermined in some way. It doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. The commodification of human relationships through social networks. Amazing!"[1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/23/thom-yorke-radiohead-interview http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/23/thom-yorke-radio...

anigbrowl 13y ago
This is only for Thom Yorke solo tunes, Atoms for Peace music from Thom and Nigel, and Nigel's side project Ultraista. The two make the argument that new music is hurt in the Spotify revenue equation. Dear Thom, I wish you had thought about this after you got very rich but before you decided that that made it a good idea of give away music for free. When lack of access to a reliable revenue model makes it difficult for build an audience for your own projects, the problem is primarily one of low return on your artistic endeavor. But for those who don't happen to be associated with an existing success such as Radiohead, that low return often means no prospect of making money at all. Whereas you can have the guitar amp of your choice or feel sure of an audience when you announce a gig, the lack of a revenue model for new music means many will never taste the leverage that you enjoy, with corresponding limitations on their musical development. This isn't all your fault, of course. But it might be good if you could devote some of your energy to finding a model that works for people without name recognition, eg by relying on your great musical talent but operating under a pseudonym while you search for new ways to sell it.
- clicks 13y ago
  Did you read the article? Thom and Nigel seem to be lamenting new bands' inability to bring in money, they're not grieving about how they themselves don't make enough through Spotify.
duaneb 13y ago
> They have to keep commodifying things to keep the share price up, but in doing so they have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions. This strikes me as typical Luddite hysteria. Of course they still have worth, the commodified version is the same as the original, and people are getting the same thing they got when buying a cd. The barrier is just drastically lowered. I do agree on the commodification of human relationships, it's a fairly disgusting trend that I hope exhausts itself in the current social network form soon.

jmduke 13y ago

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas that new artists are being trampled by Music 2.0 with success stories like Karmin and Chance the Rapper, who put out free material (via YouTube and a free mixtape, respectively) and the massive coverage launched them into the national spotlight. You know what would be awesome? A Flattr-esque system for music. You pay $XX/mo, can listen to whatever, and your money gets divvied up to artists based on play count. (if half of my play count in July comes from Blind Pilot, for instance, then they get half my money.)

forrestthewoods 13y ago
$10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. And the ad revenue from a majority free user base for infinite access to all music ever created is definitely unreasonable. It's hard to argue with th connivence factor. However right now Spotify is destroying an existing model, not paying artists, and losing money hand over fist. It's lose/lose/lose. I'd rather consumers just pirate the music that way they at least know they aren't supporting the artists.
- javajosh 13y ago
  > $10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. Why not? Most people go through a period of their life where they buy lots of albums, then they stop altogether. Flattening that out to be $10/month forever, divvied across artist based on content, would be a net win for everyone.
  - buster 13y ago
    Exactly.. or, i would say i never had a prolonged period in my life where i bought music for more then 10$/month.
- 13y ago

josteink 13y ago

I wonder if artists who withdraw their music from services like this because they don't make "enough money" from them, realize they are getting paid again and again for me listening to albums I've already bought. You may not be getting paid in buckets and buckets of cash, but what you're getting is really just a freebie. You cannot complain about getting free money. If enough artists do this, services like Spotify will not offer me enough convenience, and the other option (simply mirroring my 100GB music collection to my work PC) will then be good enough that no artists stands to earn free money for albums I've already paid for. As far as Thom Yorke's argument goes: That artists are severely underpaid in the streaming-world, I'm not going to debate that or even oppose that. He probably knows better than me. But we've already established that this was a problem with the album-model as well. You have record companies taking $10 per album and the artist getting paid $1. With a $100,000 "credit" for studio-engineers to repay. It seems the only truth and rule in the music-industry is that the artist always gets screwed.

illumen 13y ago
I found a bunch of radio head CDs in a pile of rubbish.
tzs 13y ago
> I wonder if artists who withdraw their music from services like this because they don't make "enough money" from them, realize they are getting paid again and again for me listening to albums I've already bought I wonder how common that is? At least 90% of the things I listen to on Spotify are things that I have not bought on vinyl, CD, or any non-streaming online format.
- Nursie 13y ago
  I think I'm about 70:30 stuff I already own to new stuff. Possibly even 80:20. This is probably because I have a huge music collection already, and I'm in my 30s and don't like you kids and your darned modern music so much any more. Music was so much better in my day, mumble mumble, get off my lawn etc etc.

biolime 13y ago

As a fan of both Radiohead and Spotify this makes me sad :(

hkmurakami 13y ago

I had no idea that individual artists had any say in this (thought that the mega labels determined the fate of everything related to their signed artists). Or are Yorke and Godrich's solo arrangements with the labels nonstandard, which makes this possible?

quaunaut 13y ago
From what I remember with Yorke and Radiohead, they're at a point where they have pretty much complete control. Whatever label they go with is just who they choose to do distribution.
balbaugh 13y ago
The Atoms for Peace project is on XL Recordings which is distributed by Beggars Group. Beggars Group gives all of their artists 50% of streaming revenues. Edit- One of many sources: http://www.factmag.com/2012/03/15/beggars-group-give-50-of-streaming-revenues-to-their-artists/ http://www.factmag.com/2012/03/15/beggars-group-give-50-of-s...
carlio 13y ago
Radiohead had a 6-album contract with EMI, but from In Rainbows onwards Radiohead were able to call the shots a bit more, hence being able to release it with a 'pay-what-you-want' model.[1] The article states that Radiohead's old stuff is still on Spotify, and that the albums removed were Thom Yorke's solo projects. So I imagine that EMI controls the first 6 albums, and so they are still on Spotify, while newer Radiohead content and Yorke's personal projects are more under his control. This isn't a typical arrangement for new artists, they only got that because they were a huge superstar band already. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Rainbows#Release

2pasc 13y ago

I have always wondered why Spotify does not raise their subscription fees (maybe after one year for example). If they asked me to pay more than $10/month, which seems a totally unreasonable number for everybody in this market, I would just do it because the convenience is awesome, and it is so much cheaper than any other legal alternatives for music lovers...

k-mcgrady 13y ago
I think they could certainly raise their prices in the US. Unless I'm mistaken it's cheaper there than anywhere else. e.g. In the UK it costs £9.99 which is just over $15. They could also differentiate their plans better and add in higher end ones. I think they would make more money and not impact consumers too badly if they charged for use. e.g. $5 per month for 20 songs per day. $10 per month for 40 songs per day. $20 per month unlimited.
- 2pasc 13y ago
  Indeed - they could definitely do that.

lalos 13y ago

'New artists' always had it hard, I don't think it was easy to get your record printed and distributed all over the world, at least now people can find them easier with youtube, spotify and other services without a big risk (investment). If an artist is good, they will probably get viral (see Justin Bieber) and then earn all the big bucks like Thom and Nigel. Maybe I'm missing something else since I haven't read anything related to spotify in the last few weeks.

anigbrowl 13y ago
It was certainly always hard to become a megastar, but it used to be a lot easier to put out a genre record (eg techno, drum'n'bass, jazz) because a well-run label had a pretty good sense of what would sell enough copies to turn a modest profit for everyone involved. An album that sold 4 or 5000 copies to a niche audience could make about 25k each for the artist and the label (record deals in genre music are generally a more equitable than major label ones). That's not a lot, but it's not terrible either, you could pay your rent with it. Nowadays you'd be lucky to sell 1000 copies, so small labels are correspondingly less willing to take a risk on unknown artists, and there are fewer labels with the expertise in distribution, marketing, and developing an artist's career than there used to be. If an artist is good, they will probably get viral Don't be absurd. Justin Bieber is talented, but he's also extremely attractive and happens to be proficient at the sort of music that appeals to teenage girls. That's a bit like expecting J. Random Developer to enjoy the same sort of success as Bill Gates, and concluding that if he doesn't it must be because he's no good as a programmer.
- lalos 13y ago
  Well then maybe the way the market is only certain people can get paid that much (just like a random developer becoming the next Bill Gates). Also I said artist not musician, Bieber got to where he's at not for being a talented musician but for being an artist (attractive, catchy, etc).

liveinoakland 13y ago

i'm an avid spotify user (~4+ hours a day) and honestly have no idea how this is a sustainable business. how much are the 20+ artists a day that I listen to making from my $10 a month? genuinely don't understand how this is working. there are so many artists that come out with new albums that I would buy except for the fact that I can get them free on spotify. It's saving me probably 100-200/year and that's being conservative. That means it's costing artists that much * users. Why don't more artists take the Jay-Z approach? Build an app for your album, make people buy it, or sell it in bulk to a big brand like Samsung. This seems like a way for artists to take back the industry. Pirating music from a Jay-Z app seems much much harder than from a desktop. I think we're on the verge of a total shift back to the world of pre-CD burners where you simply had to pay 10-20 to listen to an album. What am I missing?

hatu 13y ago
God no!! Would you seriously want 50 different apps to listen to a different artist on your phone? I also listen to a lot of Spotify every day at work but I never used to buy albums before. I do buy shirts and concert tickets from my favorite smaller bands (and back them on Kickstarter). So I guess the math comes down to, are there more people like me who used to pay 0$ for albums and now pays 120$ a year or people like you who used to buy lots of albums before.
icebraining 13y ago
Pirating music from a Jay-Z app seems much much harder than from a desktop. There are already dozens of torrents with thousands of peers on The Pirate Bay. It doesn't really matter how hard it is, as long as a single individual can do it. I think we're on the verge of a total shift back to the world of pre-CD burners where you simply had to pay 10-20 to listen to an album. Before CD burners we had tapes. The logo of the music industry campaign against home taping is actually part of The Pirate Bay's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Before CD burners we had tapes. ...which were subject to generation loss. You had an incentive to buy albums you liked, because taping involved a loss of quality.

gamble 13y ago

The streaming-music business reminds me of Netflix in its early days, before movie studios became worried that it was cannibalizing rental/VOD revenue for new releases. There are a certain group of fans who are willing to pay $10-20 per album for access to music the moment it's released. With Spotify, those fans are treated like any other stream even though they're willing to pay more. It's inefficient pricing, except from Spotify's perspective as they're able to use immediate access to new release music as a lure for subscribers. So really, you can look at Spotify as capturing that demand and converting it into free advertising for themselves. I don't see that as sustainable in the long run. Some artists are already holding back new releases from streaming services. Like Netflix, I think that in the future you will see few new releases from popular artists until they've been available through premium services long enough to capture demand from hardcore fans. Spotify treats all songs as if they have equal value, but that's obviously not true from the listener's perspective. For any given person, there are going to be some songs that they're willing to pay a premium to hear, and some that they'll only listen to if it's free. Spotify is a good deal for the latter case, but not if it offers a discounted version of the former to people who could pay for it. Just because Spotify counts every stream as a single interchangeable unit of value doesn't mean that listeners value every stream equally.

hatu 13y ago
I think Spotify is in a great position right now, they are building up a huge userbase right now (first step for Facebook etc. too). But the service will monetize very well. For example I would pay extra per album to get to stream a couple albums on the day of their CD release just because it's convenient to have all my music in one application. Or charge me 15$ a month for a gold account and add a feature on the artist page to leave a 1$ tip. This extra 5$ goes into my "wallet" that I can then disperse straight to my favorite artists each month. Like a microtransaction.

moomin 13y ago

Could someone throw up a pie chart showing exactly how much of your $10 actually goes to an artist? I'm guessing you're going to need to make it pretty large for it to be even visible. Good on them.

effn 13y ago
A friend of mine with a record deal is getting more from a single album sale than he gets from 50K listens on spotify.
balbaugh 13y ago
List of links to data on payouts and more: http://musically.com/2013/02/13/streaming-music-screwing-artists/ http://musically.com/2013/02/13/streaming-music-screwing-art... (has info from artists, labels, economists, more.)
glitchdout 13y ago
This is from 2010 and does not directly answer your question, but maybe you'll find it interesting: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music...

henrik_w 13y ago

Avid Spotify-user here (paying about $15 a month in Sweden). I just wish they can work it out so the artists get paid fairly - it shouldn't be that hard, should it? On the topic of pirating as an alternative - it is just sooo nice not having to manage a bunch of MP3s. Playlists are just way more convenient.

netcan 13y ago

I may be wrong, but is seems like a central part of the complaint is that newly released/recorded music isn't getting a big enough piece of the pie. I'm not sure if this is just a trollish interpretation but it sounds like they are they asking for a return to the system where "this summer's new hits" get played relentlessly until everyone is sick of them and ready for "this year's christmas albums?" I understand the argument that sales of new music funds new albums getting recorded while new sales of Hotel California don't promote any kind of artistic work. That's a purely producer side perspective though. For a listener, there is a lot of recorded music that exists. Very little of the best stuff was recorded this year (or in any given year).

netcan 13y ago

Technology giveth, technology.. I think a great analogy is/was the porn industry. Every time a new technology made it big, the industry was turned upside down. Ferraris bought by new guys. Ferraris repossessed for others. Home VCRs created an industry that dwarfed adult cinemas. Selling DVDs over the internet was even better until streaming/download video killed that model. The porn industry collapsed and immediately started trying building a new economy on newer technology. How about interactive and realtime? Can that work? If it can, they'll figure it out pretty quick. No one takes an indignant pornographer seriously so the industry doesn't spend much energy being indignant. It just grows and shrinks as it can or has to. Thom and Nigel are great artists. I'm glad they're out there making music. But I'm a little turned off by the tone of their comments (now and at other times) it all rings of a feeling that the world owes them or (more often than not) younger artists a certain business model.

duaneb 13y ago
> No one takes an indignant pornographer seriously so the industry doesn't spend much energy being indignant. It just grows and shrinks as it can or has to. If only indignant moralistic artists were appropriately looked at as foolish. We live in a capitalist world, where the things sold are only limited by what they can give the customer. The artist loses the second they allow their music to be stored in a big, copy able file, and lose all value. Convenience is by far what drives my listening habits, so if you aren't on spotify, to me, might as well not exist (unless I pirate it.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lewisflude 13y ago

Someone once said that music is the only thing that you consume before purchasing.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

Why can't Spotify follow the old VHS/Cinema model? If you want it today, you pay the premium. If you want to rent, you have to wait a bit longer.