Napalm Records Removes Content from Spotify
- Thread starter Akumu
- Start date
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
It's really starting to piss me off that the only labels talking about their bands and company being "endangered" are those in the indie metal scene. CM, Metal Blade, Napalm, and a short handful of others are bitching when small hip hop, indie rock, punk/hardcore, and electronic labels have no problem putting their stuff on spotify. Not to mention, none of these metal labels were complaining last year when spotify was available in Europe only. The rockstar mentality of the metalscene is always something that bothered me.
I mean, for christ's sake, most Napalm bands don't even tour. Certainly not over here. Maybe 1/3rd of their bands are career bands? So who is being endangered here?
I mean, for christ's sake, most Napalm bands don't even tour. Certainly not over here. Maybe 1/3rd of their bands are career bands? So who is being endangered here?
Diamond45
Terminate Bad Music
Do these companies really think that staying away from streaming services will help solve the problem? I can see negotiating a better royalty deal with Spotify, etc. But completely abandoning them is not going to solve things in the long run.
I see Spotify as a way for me to preview music, then I'll go get the CD from the wonderful CD vendors that we use or legal MP3/FLAC, etc. from Amazon or eMusic. The point being is that these labels need a way to PROMOTE their product.
I mean, do they get royalties for posting a video on YouTube? I highly doubt it. I'd like to see artists get their fair share, but if you don't promote your product, how will anybody buy it?
As the saying goes, they're "Cutting off the nose to spite the face"
I see Spotify as a way for me to preview music, then I'll go get the CD from the wonderful CD vendors that we use or legal MP3/FLAC, etc. from Amazon or eMusic. The point being is that these labels need a way to PROMOTE their product.
I mean, do they get royalties for posting a video on YouTube? I highly doubt it. I'd like to see artists get their fair share, but if you don't promote your product, how will anybody buy it?
As the saying goes, they're "Cutting off the nose to spite the face"
Justin G
Member
For what it's worth, Napalm has been pretty good about getting their music out there via free MP3 samplers and the like. People who want to sample their bands can do so easily. You won't get to hear full albums that way, but in the end no one is entitled to that.
If Spotify is supposed to be a promotional tool to expose fans to new music, I don't see why these labels can't offer up a song or two from their albums instead of walking away completely. I agree with them not wanting their entire catalog out there though. Give people just enough to hook them into buying the album.
If Spotify is supposed to be a promotional tool to expose fans to new music, I don't see why these labels can't offer up a song or two from their albums instead of walking away completely. I agree with them not wanting their entire catalog out there though. Give people just enough to hook them into buying the album.
I'm guessing they are thinking this will eat into CD sales. Considering that some people have gone away from the ownership route, it isn't entirely unreasonable. Then again, there are many places where I can't play Spotify, so I don't necessarily see it as a CD replacement. For me, my ability to use a service like Spotify is limited.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
For one thing, it's not really supposed to be a promotional tool anymore than Rhapsody is. Secondly, you can't do that because Spotify is part of the same distribution network that any distributor goes through. It's not like Youtube (or Grooveshark, for that matter) where anyone can upload content. You actually have to go through a distro to get it up on Spotify, so therein probably lies some of the problem since the distro also takes a % of the payouts in addition to the label. That being said, it's still a load of bullshit, and ultimately these labels are just holding out for Spotify to increase their payout rates before uploading their stuff again. I've never seen such baby rockstar whining from any other genre of music but metal.
If they care so much about "endangering" artists, they should consider investing in maybe health insurance programs for bands instead of crying about Spotify destroying their model. I'm sick of it.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
nailz
Member
THANK YOU. This is exactly what has me scratching my head in utterly frustrating disbelief. They bitch and they moan and they complain that Metal isn't getting "mainstream exposure" and "no one knows about it", and then, instead of taking advantage of a way for more people to become exposed to a host of new things, they fucking cut their noses off to spite their faces.
It is absolutely maddening that top rated and top selling artists aren't making a big stink over Spotify, but these small, largely insignificant labels are crying wolf and claiming rape.
Fuck, I wish all bands were independent owners of their own music so they could make their own choices. It makes me, as a music buyer, want to stop supporting the labels that are alienating new technology. Too many people in this industry are living in the 1980s.
I would be more than happy with a compromise of some sort that allowed 1/2 of an album to be "previewed" or played over spotify.
I think the major concern with these companies is that everything on spotify can be streamed over 3G/4G, which essentially eliminates any need to really purchase digital media. However, by pulling out, they're really angering a lot of fans by looking like greedy asshats. I understand they have a business to run, but there needs to be a way to embrace technology.
These labels are making a strategic decision. If they believe that CD sales are dropping by even a very small number due to Spotify, then it is best to remove the music from Spotify. It can easily be decreasing profits below acceptable margins. They don't need Spotify to 'get their music out.'
Major labels work with vastly different numbers, and business models. It is not comparable.
Major labels work with vastly different numbers, and business models. It is not comparable.
nailz
Member
dcowboys311
Member
While this is true, metal is not the only genre with 'small' labels. You can get plenty of tunes from bands on small indie, hip-hop, punk, you name it on Spotify -- and yet the metal labels are the only ones throwing hissy fits.
Sure, it's a strategic decision, much like choosing to start a brand new brick-and-mortar video store rental in the year 2011 is a 'strategic decision' or choosing to start an airline with planes that run on vegetable oil is a 'strategic decision'...
Justin G
Member
Reread that. This service makes purchasing music unneccesary and it's the labels who are being greedy for not settling for whatever pennies Spotify throws their way? I'd save my scorn for the so-called fans who think they're entitled to any album, any time, without ever opening their wallets.
dcowboys311
Member
Is that really different from any other digital subscription service though? Where's the outrage against Rhapsody or against eMusic? You still need to be a paying subscriber to Spotify to have the access on your mobile devices, so the customers certainly are 'opening their wallets' in those cases.
I didn't say that.
Spotify doesn't advertise bands for you, you still need to know about them to find them. Thus, people can still 'expose' themselves to these bands with avenues such as Facebook. Spotify's primary argument is that this is a way for labels to make money off people who would only download the album instead. That might be true, but it also might take money away from people who would buy the album, but now won't because its so easy and safe to listen to via Spotify.
nailz
Member
Ok, brb pirating music instead of simply using Spotify, because if I'm going to not buy music if it's on spotify and easy to listen to, I'm very likely not going to buy it if it's not. Yep, pulling the music certainly helped.
Here's a reality check for you people who think this is such a great way to protect labels from losing sales:
It's like DRM in video games. DRM is only effective in making real consumers angry, and one of the reasons that if a game isn't on Steam (arguably the best online distribution service ever created with built in UNNOTICABLE pirate protection), I won't buy it (I don't pirate games, mainly because I don't have time to play them, and because I love steam). DRM is cracked almost as soon as it's developed, and it doesn't cut down at all on pirates. People who are going to pirate games and music are not going to buy it at all, regardless of whether or not it's on Spotify. Or Steam.
So no, fuck it, I can't begrudge people who pirate music, simply because they're never going to change and it's a waste of energy. However, companies who dismiss technology instead of adapting to it can raise my ire. I once suggested bands start selling USB sticks with albums, or "download" cards for Amazon or iTunes specifically for their albums at shows because it would cut down on distro costs for CDs, give people nearly instant access to their albums digitally through their phones or radios (most new radios will play USB thumb drives, or have iPod hookups), and lets face it, we're moving towards digital downloads and away from physical copies.
tl;dr: Pirates are going to pirate. Nothing is going to change that. Pulling songs off Spotify isn't going to help sales.
TribunalRecords
Record Label(s)/Vocalist
I will let you guys know first hand how little i get from a track on spotify when i get my first month's statements from my digital service. we just went live with them and i am interested to see how little it is. i have heard it's less than a penny per song streamed.
It is a fine line and i think where the anger from the labels comes from is the alleged money spotify is making from ads and things like that. If the music is the driving force for the service then in turn it's needs to be paid as such.
Bottom line, time and time again, is this. Money makes the world go round. Money is needed to enjoy the music you do because on the other end of that song you listen to daily is someone trying to put food on their table, etc. Yes, beating a dead horse but the creation of art is never free there is always a cost.
It is a fine line and i think where the anger from the labels comes from is the alleged money spotify is making from ads and things like that. If the music is the driving force for the service then in turn it's needs to be paid as such.
Bottom line, time and time again, is this. Money makes the world go round. Money is needed to enjoy the music you do because on the other end of that song you listen to daily is someone trying to put food on their table, etc. Yes, beating a dead horse but the creation of art is never free there is always a cost.
skyrefuge
Member
Yeah, I've been using the generally-reported figure of around 0.16 cents per-stream (to the rights-holder, not the artist) in all the calculations I've been doing on this forum. I guess maybe my posts are too long to read! But yeah, I'm definitely interested to hear how your experience compares, especially since more recent figures indicate that payouts are increasing (up to 0.3-0.4 cents per stream, woo!)
Huh? Spotify has consistently *lost* money, because they pay out a lot more to artists than they take in! Maybe you aren't aware of this, but the vast majority of users (particularly in the US now) pay nothing to listen to Spotify. So in order to pay royalties, Spotify combines the income from ad revenue with user-subscription fees, but it's still not nearly enough to balance what they pay out.
So there is no one at Spotify getting rich by raping poor musicians. Certainly they *plan* to make that happen at some point, but it's not happening yet.
Neil
skyrefuge
Member
Just a reminder of one of my calculations, if someone listens to one of your albums 100 times over the course of their lifetime, you will actually make *more* via Spotify than selling them a CD (and that break-even point is lowered to 50 listens if payout rates are now 0.3-0.4 cents/stream). So Spotify's payouts really aren't *that* low, the main difference is that the payment is just reeeeeaaaallly spread out over time vs. the up-front payout of a CD-purchase.
The trouble is that this slow-but-steady income drip isn't so useful for large immediate expenses that bands/labels have such as recording-studio payments or tour support. Those require already-full buckets. However, the larger a label's catalog, the quicker they can fill those buckets, because many slow-but-steady streams merge into one sorta-fast-and-steady stream. Of course, this is essentially the label-as-a-bank model that has always existed (making an investment/loan in an album that is repaid over a long term), but Spotify stretches that term to the extreme. To illustrate, let's say 10 labels with one album each on Spotify would have to wait 10 years before collecting enough money to record a second album for their label. If those 10 albums were instead owned by a single label, the label would get enough money in 1 year to record another album, and then another album in the 2nd year, etc. The end result is the same in both setups (enough money to record 10 albums in 10 years) but the timing is different.
From that perspective it seems especially odd that it's CM, MB, and Napalm pulling out, since those are labels with relatively large catalogs in the metal world, so it seems like they would be the best fit for the streaming model, whereas the more boutique labels would be the ones having a tougher time with it.
Neil
The trouble is that this slow-but-steady income drip isn't so useful for large immediate expenses that bands/labels have such as recording-studio payments or tour support. Those require already-full buckets. However, the larger a label's catalog, the quicker they can fill those buckets, because many slow-but-steady streams merge into one sorta-fast-and-steady stream. Of course, this is essentially the label-as-a-bank model that has always existed (making an investment/loan in an album that is repaid over a long term), but Spotify stretches that term to the extreme. To illustrate, let's say 10 labels with one album each on Spotify would have to wait 10 years before collecting enough money to record a second album for their label. If those 10 albums were instead owned by a single label, the label would get enough money in 1 year to record another album, and then another album in the 2nd year, etc. The end result is the same in both setups (enough money to record 10 albums in 10 years) but the timing is different.
From that perspective it seems especially odd that it's CM, MB, and Napalm pulling out, since those are labels with relatively large catalogs in the metal world, so it seems like they would be the best fit for the streaming model, whereas the more boutique labels would be the ones having a tougher time with it.
Neil
