Steve Lawson - Why I've Taken My Music Off Spotify

[xilddx]

Interesting piece.

http://www.stevelawson.net/2011/12/why-ive-taken-my-music-off-spotify/

I haven't used it since about a month after I signed up, which was ages ago.

[LukeFRC]

No idea who he is but I enjoyed the tune on the right hand side of the page

[xilddx]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1324067026' post='1470609']
No idea who he is but I enjoyed the tune on the right hand side of the page
[/quote]

A well known and eminent bassist (and BC member I believe).

[Mykesbass]

OK, not one for controversy usually, but I really feel this guy is way off the mark.

From his website:

"This may well be because, as this article claims, the majors have it rigged anyway. It’s certainly true that anyone paying Spotify to listen to my music is also funding the Major record labels. Labels that I hope will cease to exist before too long."

"Steve Lawson – new-age, post-rock, ambient-jazz, solo-bass…"

Sorry for Steve but major labels don't hope that he will cease to exist as they are probably unaware of his existence in the first place.

edit for tin hat

Edited December 16, 2011 by Mykesbass

[xilddx]

You naughty boy, but not far off agreeing with you But I also agree with Steve that Bandcamp is more useful, although they need ratings and download and play numbers on there.

[Marvin]

Perhaps I read it wrong then.

I thought it read that Steve Lawson hoped the major labels would cease to exist not that the labels hoped that Steve cease to exist. Maybe I'm wrong?

[xilddx]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1324070513' post='1470667']
Perhaps I read it wrong then.

I thought it read that Steve Lawson hoped the major labels would cease to exist not that the labels hoped that Steve cease to exist. Maybe I'm wrong?
[/quote]
Yes, the former is correct mate.

[thisnameistaken]

He's mostly right, but it's not really news.

Recorded music as a commodity was fatally injured over 10 years ago when peer-to-peer networking was all the rage, there's no point trying to make any money out of it now. Recordings are marketing tools that if you're incredibly lucky will turn into modest revenue streams, but probably won't.

[Lfalex v1.1]

Perhaps, but that does nothing to detract from their being "works of art" (for want of a better expression)
I'd rather that artists produced musical works for the sake of it (art) than to try and make money from it.
It's not that I'm trying to deny them a living. I just think I prefer the motive of trying to make good music in the hope that someone will like it rather than making music just to make money. Not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' timestamp='1324073812' post='1470707']
Perhaps, but that does nothing to detract from their being "works of art" (for want of a better expression)
I'd rather that artists produced musical works for the sake of it (art) than to try and make money from it.
It's not that I'm trying to deny them a living. I just think I prefer the motive of trying to make good music in the hope that someone will like it rather than making music just to make money. Not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

The thing is mate, working life gets in the way of creativity, through stress, lack of dedication time, lack of time to think. Lack of investment, in terms of time and money erodes musical expression and quality. Why do you think new orchestral music is in such short supply?

You have to make some money at music to be the best you can be. I know what I'd be doing if I won the lottery.

[leftybassman392]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this (and I make no claim to expertise since I don't use Spotify), there's a simple truth behind the way major labels think (or any large corporation for that matter), and anyone planning to deal with them (or not) should memorise the following and chant it as a mantra whenever they feel the need of a compass to guide them:

(With apologies to the Terminator movie franchise): They exist to make money for themselves. It's what they do. It's all they do.

Edited December 16, 2011 by leftybassman392

[Panamonte]

I'm not sure if I entirely understand why Steve has taken his music off Spotify - the precise difference between the low payout per stream (which he doesn't object to) and the role of the majors in dictating the payout policy (which he does object to) is maybe a bit too subtle for me.

I have a few musician friends who rail against Spotify because of the tiny revenues per stream and I can understand - on a gut level - why they'd prefer people to consume their music in a different, more profitable (for them) way. But surely the whole point here is that recorded music is no longer an inherently profitable part of the business - it now exists as a loss-leading promotional tool to get punters to come and see you play live which is where you earn money. If that's the case, surely the most important thing is that your music is as widely available online as it can be, regardless of the comparatively low income that may generate.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Panamonte

[risingson]

It's a bit of a vicious circle. If he wants people to be engaging with his music then he needs to have it splurged across multiple platforms of availability, including Spotify. And because his music is so very niche and appeals to a very exclusive audience, he needs all the help he can get. I understand his frustrations concerning minimum payments though, it's just that sometimes it's better not to bite the hand that feeds you.

[stonecoldbass]

I mostly agree with you but I think 'the whole point' is that we need to STOP recorded music turning into a promotional tool! We shouldn't just accept that nobody buys CDs etc anymore and we should be looking to fund ways in which if we like music, we pay for what we consume. You can't say that's not fair. Why should an artist spend days/weeks/months/years slaving to craft and create the best possible presentations of his music in a recorded format only for people to view it as a free business card? I believe there are equal amounts of worth and creativity in recorded music as there are in live performances.
As for Spotify I agree with Steve that they should be much more transparent with the amounts and ways in which people get paid. Then as consumers we can make informed choices about how we wish to consume the music we listen to: either free streaming, paid downloads, paid streaming or actual physical items!
C
[quote name='Panamonte' timestamp='1324081223' post='1470793']
I'm not sure if I entirely understand why Steve has taken his music off Spotify - the precise difference between the low payout per stream (which he doesn't object to) and the role of the majors in dictating the payout policy (which he does object to) is maybe a bit too subtle for me.

I have a few musician friends who rail against Spotify because of the tiny revenues per stream and I can understand - on a gut level - why they'd prefer people to consume their music in a different, more profitable (for them) way. But surely the whole point here is that recorded music is no longer an inherently profitable part of the business - it now exists as a loss-leading promotional tool to get punters to come and see you play live which is where you earn money. If that's the case, surely the most important thing is that your music is as widely available online as it can be, regardless of the comparatively low income that may generate.
[/quote]

[arthurhenry]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324075544' post='1470735']
The thing is mate, working life gets in the way of creativity, through stress, lack of dedication time, lack of time to think. Lack of investment, in terms of time and money erodes musical expression and quality. Why do you think new orchestral music is in such short supply?

You have to make some money at music to be the best you can be. I know what I'd be doing if I won the lottery.
[/quote]

Entirely correct. Interesting how we take recorded music for granted when not so many years ago, the only way to hear music was to play it yourself or be in the same room as someone performing. We gained a lot through recorded music, but perhaps we lost something too.

[flyfisher]

Maybe not entirely correct. Surely much good music is created in response to life experiences? What life experiences would be gained by spending all one's time in a bedroom writing songs or in a studio writing them. Like most things it's all a question of balance.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='stonecoldbass' timestamp='1324119412' post='1470938']
I mostly agree with you but I think 'the whole point' is that we need to STOP recorded music turning into a promotional tool! We shouldn't just accept that nobody buys CDs etc anymore and we should be looking to fund ways in which if we like music, we pay for what we consume. You can't say that's not fair. Why should an artist spend days/weeks/months/years slaving to craft and create the best possible presentations of his music in a recorded format only for people to view it as a free business card? I believe there are equal amounts of worth and creativity in recorded music as there are in live performances.
[/quote]
Conversely, why should an artist spend 20 minutes writing a song, a couple of hours recording it, and then be able to reap millions from that half-day's work for the rest of their life? Sure, it's an extreme example, but we can all think of plenty of examples so it's a well-know phenomenon. At least artists are actually doing a job of work when performing, which is something the audience can actually relate to.

This, I think, is the root of the issue because it's the perception of a vast paying audiences that really matter, not the views of the artists. It's the audience that puts the value on a piece of music (or other art), not the artist. New technology has given audiences the opportunity to really make their feelings about the true value of music known and they seem to be perfectly willing to share and swap recordings for free but still pay very large sums of money for live performances.

Am I the only person to have felt rather uncomfortable about the sight of multi-millionaire artists such as Sir Cliff Richards lobbying for a change in the law because they felt that 50 years 'protection' of their royalties was not enough?

All this turmoil in the industry is a result of it no longer having such tight control over things, resulting in a loss of income and consequential near-panic among the music moguls. But this will pass in time as the new reality takes over. But there'll still be a lot of moaning and Cnut-like attempts to prevent the tide from coming in.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324123463' post='1470996'] ... At least artists are actually doing a job of work when performing, which is something the audience can actually relate to. This, I think, is the root of the issue because it's the perception of a vast paying audiences that really matter, not the views of the artists. It's the audience that puts the value on a piece of music (or other art), not the artist.[/quote]

+1.

Also music just isn't as central to popular culture as it used to be. And that's probably in part due to the quality and longevity of popular music being promoted by the industry. It's unsurprising that recorded music is losing its value when the labels clearly don't value their artists at all.

[stonecoldbass]

If that '20 minute song' is powerful enough to connect with enough people to enable them to reap millions for the rest of their life then I think they are entitled to it!! Who can put a value on the creative ability to connect with people? Like you say it's the audience that puts the value to a piece of music, so the time spent on creating it is irrelevant. I'm sure countless songs have been conjured up in minutes, and equally some songs take an age. It doesn't make one more or less valuable.

[xilddx]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324123463' post='1470996']
Conversely, why should an artist spend 20 minutes writing a song, a couple of hours recording it, and then be able to reap millions from that half-day's work for the rest of their life? Sure, it's an extreme example, but we can all think of plenty of examples so it's a well-know phenomenon. At least artists are actually doing a job of work when performing, which is something the audience can actually relate to.

This, I think, is the root of the issue because it's the perception of a vast paying audiences that really matter, not the views of the artists. It's the audience that puts the value on a piece of music (or other art), not the artist. New technology has given audiences the opportunity to really make their feelings about the true value of music known and they seem to be perfectly willing to share and swap recordings for free but still pay very large sums of money for live performances.

Am I the only person to have felt rather uncomfortable about the sight of multi-millionaire artists such as Sir Cliff Richards lobbying for a change in the law because they felt that 50 years 'protection' of their royalties was not enough?

All this turmoil in the industry is a result of it no longer having such tight control over things, resulting in a loss of income and consequential near-panic among the music moguls. But this will pass in time as the new reality takes over. But there'll still be a lot of moaning and Cnut-like attempts to prevent the tide from coming in.
[/quote]

That 20 minutes could be the distillation of a lifetime's work.

[MacDaddy]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324123463' post='1470996']Am I the only person to have felt rather uncomfortable about the sight of multi-millionaire artists such as Sir Cliff Richards lobbying for a change in the law because they felt that 50 years 'protection' of their royalties was not enough?[/quote]

possibly. Why shouldn't musicians have the same rights to their work as authors?

[BigRedX]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324127070' post='1471070']
That 20 minutes could be the distillation of a lifetime's work.
[/quote]
There's no "could" about this. Some of the songs my band has written over the last year have come together in less than an hour. That's not because there's not much to them (although a lot of the time simple is often best) but because I have 35 years experience of writing songs to draw upon.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='MacDaddy' timestamp='1324127812' post='1471076']
possibly. Why shouldn't musicians have the same rights to their work as authors?
[/quote]
IME the musicians who argue against extending copyright for song writers are generally not writers themselves, or those who place little value upon their creations.

My opinion is always that if you want to give your musical work away for free that's entirely your prerogative. But please don't force your (lack of) values on those who hope to earn some money from their musical endeavours.

It always strikes me as weird that many musicians place more emphasis upon technical ability than being able to create a new piece of music. Just remember that without any songs to play your technical ability is worthless.

[flyfisher]

All good points, which shows how difficult the whole issue really is.

A 20 minute song being the distillation of an entire life? Quite possibly, but I reckon there's a fair chance that the man on the Clapham omnibus will still see it as 20 minutes of actual 'work'. There seems to be a fair bit of public distaste for successful fund managers being paid millions, but at least they actually go to work every day whereas disaffected youths such as Lennon & McCartney made hundreds of millions from knocking out 3-minute wonders while bunking off school.

Musicians having the same rights as authors? Yes, why not? But that doesn't automatically mean 90 years royalty protection is 'right'. The playing field could be levelled up or down.

I'm not really arguing for or against these things, mainly because I find it hard to justify them either way. If artists manage to negotiate various rights then good luck to them, but I don't see there's any particular definitive principle or 'right' for such things. I also get a bit uncomfortable about the concept of 'worthy' art when, surely, it's all a matter of subjectivity in the eye - or ear - of the audience?

It's a bit like the reverence some people have for 'fine' wine. That's their choice, of course, but "the best wine in the world" means diddly-squat to anyone who doesn't actually like the stuff.

[xilddx]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1324129243' post='1471105']
All good points, which shows how difficult the whole issue really is.

A 20 minute song being the distillation of an entire life? Quite possibly, but I reckon there's a fair chance that the man on the Clapham omnibus will still see it as 20 minutes of actual 'work'. There seems to be a fair bit of public distaste for successful fund managers being paid millions, but at least they actually go to work every day whereas disaffected youths such as Lennon & McCartney made hundreds of millions from knocking out 3-minute wonders while bunking off school.

Musicians having the same rights as authors? Yes, why not? But that doesn't automatically mean 90 years royalty protection is 'right'. The playing field could be levelled up or down.

I'm not really arguing for or against these things, mainly because I find it hard to justify them either way. If artists manage to negotiate various rights then good luck to them, but I don't see there's any particular definitive principle or 'right' for such things. I also get a bit uncomfortable about the concept of 'worthy' art when, surely, it's all a matter of subjectivity in the eye - or ear - of the audience?

It's a bit like the reverence some people have for 'fine' wine. That's their choice, of course, but "the best wine in the world" means diddly-squat to anyone who doesn't actually like the stuff.
[/quote]

Why is it a difficult issue?

And why should I give a f*** what the bloke in Clapham thinks about the amount of work it takes to write a good song?

You seem to have a strange set of ideas about relationship between monetary value, societal value, and effort, and how to quantify that effort.