Wonder if anyone can give me an update on how Spotify is viewed by artistes. I subscribe but suspect artists get virtually nothing. I DO really like it but still buy CD's. I'm curious as to how albums get on so early - almost pre release - does the artist give any consent? But also albums disappear which would suggest no consent given? eg some Virgil Donati - the Live in Oz album was on for quite a while but isn't anymore. Would be grateful for any inside track.
As an artist i can say that Spotify is a great legalised theft.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.
The best write-ups I've seen on this subject have been from David Lowery:
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/18...gs-considered/
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/04/15...oss-full-post/
That second one is very long but well worth taking the time to read in full.
See also:
http://www.pledgemusic.com/blog/52-s...ndent-musician
And there are also rebuttals to various points Lowery makes:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...s-models.shtml
Crikey, that Lowery is a pompous ass. Spotify is a great of listening to music on the move, convenient at home now, I've pretty much replaced listening to CDs at home with an Android tablet running into my amp, it's much tidier.
I'm not arguing that they shouldn't pay artists more in royalties, but then so should record companies, concert promoters etc etc. That's between artists and labels and Spotify, it's not my problem. I think Spotify is brilliant. I wouldn't download albums from pirate bay and suchlike though, that's skanky.
Dislike Spotify, it pays basically nothing. Understand the convenience of discovery but it seems Youtube works well enough for that and some royalties come through traditional means.
Wow. If those folks had deliberately set out to misrepresent DL's points, I'm not sure they could have been farther off than they actually were.Originally Posted by R. Totale III
Personally I can see the attraction from a cutomers point of view but from labels/artists point of view its rubbish. It pays next to nothing at all. It really depends though on what that bands driving motivator is--we offer the choice to people of if they want to be on it/or not----or on it but with a big time delay from release etc. The majors will support it as they have a majority stake interest in it and Im sure when its fattened up enough it will be sold off and they will all make so in the meantime low revenue really isnt an issue to them (although it may be to their artists)
It was interesting reading the thread through on rebuttals. It is true that many many artists particularly in the 70,s and 60's earned next to nothing apart from the very successful and not that many albums ever recouped--thats partly because costs to make an album were just so much higher--the do it at your desk stuff just wasnt available, however as technology progressed artistses that came to light in the 80's and 90's started to make some good money and deals improved hugely too-it no longer became acceptable to pay 2%s and 18-22%s became the norm. Its a lot of these artists who are now speaking up, because they got used to making good money from CD sales, touring etc and the bottom to a large extent has dropped out of that both for artists and labels too. My own personal take on this is sometimes you just have to move on, although neither do I believe in legalised theft either, spending habits have changed. I know anecdotally of several artists with enormous places, lots of cars etc who are very , very reluctant to down trade at all, even though they may be doing very little these days and cant accept that royalty payments just wont substantiate that kind of life anymore. The main problem is some of them have never really done anything else. I think deals should be fair, payments made as per contracts, everything should be above board, stuff like Spotify --if you dont like it, dont sanction it, it isnt usually in the older contracts but unless you are a huge artist sales wise or concert wise, its not a full time living just putting out specialist albums for many artists----do something else as well, and look on the music as a bonus that may bring in some nice extra revenue.
Wow -- to support YouTube over a legal service that has contractual agreements with artists and rights holders?? That confuses me.
Esoteric, I agree when you say " deals should be fair, payments made as per contracts, everything should be above board, stuff like Spotify --if you dont like it, dont sanction it.."
I hope the pressure keeps up, as far as it can , to update deals w Spotify. But I've read that 70% of their revenues are paid out to artists.
My question for the people so driven by the morality argument:
Weren't we all buying LPs, cassettes and CDs all thru the 70s, 80s, 90s etc...WHEN WE KNEW FOR SURE that record companies were RIPPING OFF ARTISTS and only paying them $1.29-$2.00 per album...and keeping the other $10.00-14.00??
Wasn't that supporting "legalized theft"?? How is this so different?
Bottom line -- bands that would not get airplay, are building a fanbase with Spotify being a legal part of people hearing their music.
Should I NOT listen to music I would otherwise not hear at all??
Should I NOT listen to a 35 year old Thin Lizzy album I have paid for 2-3 times in other formats..???
Should I really feel like I'm stealing from Phil, Mike and Tony b/c I listened to ABACAB on Spotify the other day?
I wonder how many CDs the loudest complainers about Spotify would be selling otherwise. That's the real question.
Esoteric -- also brings up the difference in COST OF MAKING AN ALBUM today -- that is often left out of the argument (because it drastically changes things). The simple fact is we have to factor that in. We can't scream and yell that payments should be "like the old days"...(whatever that means)...while not admitting that brilliant and successful albums are made today for a small fraction of the money that it took in the 70s/80s.
@Gallen - you raise the best point about Spotify...It's legal, so yes, when a record company or other shared rights-holder enables a release, an artist can dispute that and there seems to be some process (as there is with Youtube) to have stuff taken down.
Now, Virgil Donati -- how do I hear your album?? I've seen you play live, you;re a good drummer....But I'm not motivated to buy your album. Hearing it -- may spark more interest IF YOUR STUFF IS GOOD, and I'll look for a DVD, or make sure I see you live, where I'll buy more merch.
That model seems much more certain and is working fantastically for a whole bunch of bands. I see acts ALL THE TIME, that I would not have been turned onto w/out Spotify...or whose new album I was able to get familiar with.
I've spent a small fortune on cassettes, LPs, DVDs. I'm done -- 10s of 1000s of dollars. Thousands of albums, 6 or 7,000 CDs..?
No one is gonna accuse me of not supporting artists or the music biz because I listen/subscribe to Spotify.
I have never downloaded illegally, save for the infamous Fiona Apple CD, and that, as you may know , has the whole backstory of the record company blocking it's release etc, so I don't count that. If I supported illegal downloading I'd have been doing it.
If you don't like Spotify, ..Don't use it.
I will continue to use it every day, all day. Along with CDs, cassettes, and great radio.....Having a giant pool of recorded music right on my phone means I listen to far more MUSIC....far less NEWS, and stay off of FORUMS far more ---those two things make it pretty awesome.
Question -- some indie or college station plays your new Prog CD - -how do you get paid for that?? How much do you get paid?
Thought I would resurrect this thread to get opinions on why I've joined Spotify. I personally spend about £30 per month on recorded music. I've given up buying CD's as I can't stand having any more plastic cases. Like many here I still love vinyl, but have gotten used to buying downloads (I'll say high quality downloads to keep people from having a go). I cannot convince my teenage sons to buy music but they can now use my Spotify account. I cannot ever hope to afford to buy all the music I want to (both old and new). I am so over owing physical product. I have joined Spotify to address these issues. I feel bad if artists say they essentially get no payment from Spotify, but surely this type of service is the future of music.
I can understand the frustration to the low royalties.
But as a direct result of Spotify, I've bought a significant number of albums that I doubt I would have otherwise purchased :
Presto Ballet
Iona
...And you will know us by the trail of the Dead
Big Big Train
Crippled Black Phoenix
Plus many more I can't recall. If I don't like something after listening to it on Spotify, I move on.
Surely some others do the same?
I have bought countless albums BECAUSE of Spotify.
I buy albums that are recommended by PE folks whose opinions I trust. I had a spotify account but I don't use it. I like and take pride in my LP and CD collection and cant imagine ever having my collection be invisible (as in just downloaded into a device that can break or get lost or stolen) I like holding LPs and looking at the artwork, liner notes and lyrics. I know that physical albums are quickly becoming extinct, but as long as they are available I will continue to buy new ones. When the music I want becomes only available as downloaded nothingness, I'll stop buying it.
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
I usually use Spotify when I am at work. I don't care to haul my thousands of CD's there
I choose a few CDs of various styles to take on the go each day. I don't haul my collection around eitherI usually use Spotify when I am at work. I don't care to haul my thousands of CD's there
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
That is a one option too. I vastly prefer my method. And artists even get some (ok, very) small extra income = I already own CD's but still listen to them by Spotify stream.I choose a few CDs of various styles to take on the go each day. I don't haul my collection around either
according to the info presented in this thread, artists seem to get the shaft
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
As an artist, I have the obvious concerns about Spotify. That being said, I have a hard time mustering up any anger about it because as a music fan, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it! Their radio function is great. I have discovered more great new music than I can possibly listen to in a 24-hour day. Music from all genres I would've never heard otherwise.
As I said I have already bought the CD's. Nobody is claiming that the artists get NOTHING from Spotify.
Of course I also listen to music that I have not heard from Spotify. When it is good it will lead to CD purchase. I still love the physical format and also I want to be fair to artists. Though I also think that if artists hate Spotify so much they should make deals that don't include it. Easier said than done I know but...
I have my portable drive with 300 gigs of music at work - but Spotify is nice for the holes in my collection... and the odd new thing I actually want to check out. I'm with some other people that have said they bought music because of Spotify... its a nice place to check out the new goodies and then pay for it because the artists do indeed deserve the money.
Huge fan. My albums are on there too and I haven't seen a penny. It's changed my life musically. I have bought more music than ever because of it so the haters can have themselves a squat on the cosmic utensil. With love of course. Best $10 I spend every month no joke.
PS - the classical selection is beyond words.
If you can't download this music,how can it be theft? The only charge that Spotify asks for is to remove commercials from the streams. I have a free account and I have gotten to listen to many albums just to decide whether I wanted to buy them. How is this different from listening to www.progstreaming.com or www.auralmoon.com or www.deliciousagony.com ?
I have lots of friends that don't buy music but pay for Spotify. The interesting point is that they haven't EVER BEFORE paid for music. Now they use 60 to 120 euros per year for Spotify subscribtions. That is some kind of progress I think.
My progressive music site: https://pienemmatpurot.com/ Reviews in English: https://pienemmatpurot.com/in-english/
But,if you don't mind the ads,it's still free.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks