Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
IIRC Lance has previously spoken very highly of last.fm and their payment structure.
EDIT: Found it!
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/progpower-usa/731349-spotify-label-royalty.html#post10076072
Spotify Artist ROI - how Spotify contributes to the music business
- Thread starter AeonicSlumber
- Start date
IIRC Lance has previously spoken very highly of last.fm and their payment structure.
EDIT: Found it!
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/progpower-usa/731349-spotify-label-royalty.html#post10076072
hm. I've been using last.fm for many years, but I only ever use it for scrobbling; I've never used the radio feature.
Spotify is just annoying to me, whatever royalties they do or don't pay out, so I don't use it.
AngraRULES
Member
In all honesty, why is it annoying? Tell me how it's more annoying than Pandora, iTunes radio, etc... ?
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
No - I genuinely don't understand - as evidenced by the points I made in my previous post. But yes, I also don't agree either.
Well, put it like this... Those numbers aren't exactly going to correspond very well with everyone's reality anyway. My last statement saw one song streamed over 10000 times. That's not much, but.... it should amount to roughly $60, right? Except, in my case, I only hold 50% of the rights (as I'm only a half-assed songwriter and therefore need someone to fill in the other half). That way we're down to $30. I am luckily stupid enough to refuse giving my work away for free so I lose nothing to a publisher. (That could have easily eaten up 50% or more without anyone doing any actual publishing.) How much did I actually see from that song from Spotify? Less than $3. Luckily for me there are other streaming services that actually pay out. I am not going to change my mind about Spotify as from my perspective it is so bad that I actually prefer to see people pirating my music. From a listeners perspective it's pretty good. At least for as long as musicians are happy to finance everything themselves. I guess it is good for me too in a way. It, finally, gives me a good solid reason not to waste my time (and money) making music nobody really cares for anyway.
Well, I'm not going to respond to most of this because much of this is a reflection of perhaps bigger issues. But I will say that I'm sorry you feel this way, and that I hope you don't give up on music. I don't know what band you're in - but I will say that it's always a shame when an artist loses motivation to make art.
No - I genuinely don't understand - as evidenced by the points I made in my previous post. But yes, I also don't agree either.
Well, I'm not going to respond to most of this because much of this is a reflection of perhaps bigger issues. But I will say that I'm sorry you feel this way, and that I hope you don't give up on music. I don't know what band you're in - but I will say that it's always a shame when an artist loses motivation to make art.
Errr....you're on this board and you don't know who Urban Breed is? This explains a lot.
AngraRULES
Member
Jasonic
Doom On!
Thanks for the detailed explanation folks.
Well, what I am deducting is that unless you have an unlimited dataplan, the downloading really isn't anything beneficial, esp for replay on a mobile device, which is what I would mostly be interested in.
Well, what I am deducting is that unless you have an unlimited dataplan, the downloading really isn't anything beneficial, esp for replay on a mobile device, which is what I would mostly be interested in.
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
Yes, and that's really because Spotify is a streaming service, not a downloading service. I can absolutely see why streaming is a hinderance to a TON of lifestyles, especially for those who place high priority on physical media. Personally, I was apprehensive about it before becoming a believer (but this was in like, 2008/9 when Spotify was getting huge in Europe - and it would be years before it would come here), because even if it is cool having access to everything in one seamless cloud network - if Spotify goes down, so does the music. That of course, is the dilemma with the service as a whole.
Urban breed
Member
Urban breed
Member
Not really. I'd say it's a good thing as it appears to be the natural order of things that composers and/or musicians should not get paid for their work. I will probably still make music. I simply won't publish it anywhere.
General Zod
Ruler of Australia
Not true. You can download all the music over WiFi and not use your data plan at all. There's even a setting in the Spotify app to only download over WiFi.
General Zod
Ruler of Australia
The other factor to consider, when comparing Spotify to iTunes, Spotify doesn't contribute to piracy. Files downloaded legally through iTunes are often shared illegally. So if a user legally buys an album for $4.99 from iTunes, offers it up via torrent, it’s downloaded by 100 people, then the sale of that album actually generated less than a nickel per listener. Conversely, a pure Spotify model has the potential to eliminate piracy. In addition, as bandwidth gets cheaper, technology evolves, and record labels disappear, there will be more money left for the artists. Granted, it's never going to be what it once was, but few things are. Technology, by its very nature, impacts the financials of everything it touches.
Of course, the flipside is, technology has also significantly lowered the cost of entry into the market. In this digital age, musicians have an unprecedented opportunity to create, release and distribute music, without the financial assistance of a 3rd party. And the truth is, music (as an art form) is better off for it. While I would wholeheartedly love to see the artists I listen to profit from their art, the harsh reality is great art is more often made by struggling musicians than rock stars. Granted, such a position is purely subjective. However, it’s not difficult to see that for most bands, their earlier work is their better work. And in a Spotify model, artists have the potential to be rewarded year after year for their earlier works.
Finally, is money really an incentive to create art? The last ten years has witnessed a complete financial meltdown within the music industry. However, it feels as if there’s more new music being released than ever, and no dearth in quality. If financial reward was a necessity, we would see established artists leaving the scene for financial reasons and fewer new bands entering it. However, neither is the case. Humans will always create music, and angry humans will always create Metal.
Of course, the flipside is, technology has also significantly lowered the cost of entry into the market. In this digital age, musicians have an unprecedented opportunity to create, release and distribute music, without the financial assistance of a 3rd party. And the truth is, music (as an art form) is better off for it. While I would wholeheartedly love to see the artists I listen to profit from their art, the harsh reality is great art is more often made by struggling musicians than rock stars. Granted, such a position is purely subjective. However, it’s not difficult to see that for most bands, their earlier work is their better work. And in a Spotify model, artists have the potential to be rewarded year after year for their earlier works.
Finally, is money really an incentive to create art? The last ten years has witnessed a complete financial meltdown within the music industry. However, it feels as if there’s more new music being released than ever, and no dearth in quality. If financial reward was a necessity, we would see established artists leaving the scene for financial reasons and fewer new bands entering it. However, neither is the case. Humans will always create music, and angry humans will always create Metal.
TribunalRecords
Record Label(s)/Vocalist
We are far from the end of this debate and as sales continue to drop people will start making harder decisions which they currently haven't been forced to do yet.
From a listeners viewpoint Spotify rules, from a musicians viewpoint it sucks. it's all about the continuing devaluation of recorded music. Sure, people aren't stealing it and getting it for free, but now we just have to give it away for pennies on the dollar and let some company keep "only 30%" of it.
dcowboys311
Member
You will continue to see recorded music devalue even more as it becomes easier and easier for people to release their own songs/albums/etc. Why should I pay $12 for your album when I can get the next guy's for $6? Why should I pay $6 when the other guy is offering his for free? The more choices you have, the less any one choice can realistically charge. Not only do we have more music being released each year as time goes on, but you also have to compete with the recorded music from every prior year -- and people's pockets don't grow at that same rate. The average music listener isn't spending his time combing through distros and music stores like we do.
I use Spotify as a discovery tool mostly (free version). I've found a bunch of stuff (and subsequently purchased) using them.
I also find myself using it more and more for listening to stuff I already own while I'm at work.
I also find myself using it more and more for listening to stuff I already own while I'm at work.
General Zod
Ruler of Australia
I agree completely. It’s hard to approximate where this all will land. However, I’m not sure it can get much worse for the artists. At this point, I would expect things to stabilize and then begin to grow modestly.
I would also agree with you on this point. However, if musicians are ever to regain a financial foothold in the marketplace, they’ll need to do so under an umbrella that thwarts piracy. I believe Spotify (or a Spotify-like solution) has that potential, whereas an iTunes type solution does not.
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
Cheap does not mean good.
And why? Because you care about the artist and want more stuff. I frequently voluntarily pay more than the asking price for awesome stuff on Bandcamp. I think I gave Disperse like $25 for their first album because I want a lot more of them.
Is Spotify about users getting cheap or free music? Or is it about paying to continue creation of art? They're doing a great job of number 1, and not as great a job of number 2, seemingly.
dcowboys311
Member
Spotify is not targeting people like me and you who 'care' about anything. They are targeting the average listener, i.e. people who want free stuff.
I doubt the minds behind Spotify are in business to continue the creation of other people's art. They are in business to continue creation of their own paychecks.
TribunalRecords
Record Label(s)/Vocalist
The issue is that artists who trusted labels to take care of their recordings and their respective value have watched labels squander chances to get control of this piracy issue over the years. They also allowed a company like Apple to come in and hijack an entire industry by simply creating a music player and setting up a store. iTunes takes 30% of ALL SALES of which it is currently the largest digital reseller in the world. It would be like Sony taking 30% of all music sales simply because they had the first CD player on the market back in the day. (note: not sure who made and sold the first player). Bandcamp is trying to be a competitor to itunes by taking less of a cut AND offering lossless audio files. Also, anyone can sign up to Bandcamp.
iTunes and other digital resellers all require a middle-man to service your audio to them, these middle-men take another 10-15% off the top of your digital sales. so basically what is left for artists to split is roughly 55-60% and this % doesn't include label's cut, etc.
spag
I am a leaf on the wind
I use Spotify mostly for convenience. I was playing the game of deleting stuff off my iPod, putting newer stuff on, which was frequently the case when I got something new. Spotify takes a lot of hassle away from that at work. I pay for the premium plan, whatever is commercial free. The vast majority of the playlists I have are for music I already own. It's just easier to be able to listen to it at work than having to have my whole collection there. No, they don't have everything, but it's enough for me. I've even been able to listen to a decent number of new releases there, so it's been easier to make choices.
It doesn't replace buying for me, as ultimately, I do like having my music a certain way, and I like to be able to load it on an iPod and carry it around with me. It is definitely like having access to a big used record store where you can go in and browse though. I have found a few albums on there from artists who I thought I had everything from. That's like finding gold.
It doesn't replace buying for me, as ultimately, I do like having my music a certain way, and I like to be able to load it on an iPod and carry it around with me. It is definitely like having access to a big used record store where you can go in and browse though. I have found a few albums on there from artists who I thought I had everything from. That's like finding gold.
Similar threads
