"Spotify is last desperate fart of a dying corpse." Discuss.

[chrkelly]

There's a select few speaking sense here but come guys, I thought EVERYONE on this forum is a MUSICIAN. Clearly not...

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1381493771' post='2239820']




I wonder how many Basschatters have never actually seen a cassette tape in the flesh, so to speak?
[/quote]

God, I remember that;) at one time the price of a cassette tape went up by 30p or similar because of this. Didnt make much difference.

[discreet]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1381497173' post='2239882']
Cassettes believe it or not are making a bit of a come back. The next Terrortones release will probably be a live "bootleg" on cassette.
[/quote]

Ours too... 7" vinyl and cassette. No CD or mp3s. Back to the future!

[flyfisher]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381438844' post='2239256']
Because you're depriving them of their ability to get paid?
[/quote]

How?

If I was distributing a free download to loads of people then, yes, I'd be depriving them of money.

But if I download a file for which I would not otherwise pay for myself then how does that affect the artist?

Perhaps I'm abnormal but I've not stopped buying music since the internet arrived. What I have done is listened to a much wider range of music than I used to. The stuff I don't like I don't buy but the likelihood is that I've bought stuff [u]because [/u]I've discovered it while listening to free copies.

If it wasn't for terabyte hard drives I'd probably delete all the stuff I've only listened to once and never will again - would that make things any better?

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1381455599' post='2239467']
You can find out they suck without having given them money first. That's a terrifying thing for those who make commercial music that's reliant on you being distracted by the new shiny before you realise.
[/quote]

Now THAT'S the real issue here. No wonder the music business is panicking about the internet!

[cybertect]

Much as I like Thomas Yorke, David Byrne is rather more eloquent on the topic of Spotify in yesterday's Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world?commentpage=1

[tedmanzie]

[quote name='cybertect' timestamp='1381533519' post='2240543']
Much as I like Thomas Yorke, David Byrne is rather more eloquent on the topic of Spotify in yesterday's Guardian

[url="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world?commentpage=1"]http://www.theguardi...d?commentpage=1[/url]
[/quote]


This is very interesting.

Seems like the 'dying corpse' is the musician then, not the music industry?

[the boy]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1381561634' post='2240602']



This is very interesting.

Seems like the 'dying corpse' is the musician then, not the music industry?
[/quote]
Yes that would fit better.......

Although maybe the op meant that spotify was a zombie that was dying. Zombies are indeed the undead, however they are also dead. So technically a dying zombie could be viewed as a dying corpse. Spotify could be viewed a mindless savage looking to suck the life out of all creativity and hence producing more zombies until all that is left is zombie music.

I mean it's not the most conclusive defence I've ever put together but it's plausible.........

[discreet]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1381561634' post='2240602']
Seems like the 'dying corpse' is the musician then, not the music industry?
[/quote]

I wondered why I wasn't feeling too good.

[Stan_da_man]

In Rainbows was the best LP of the 00's.

[Stan_da_man]

[quote name='chrkelly' timestamp='1381514134' post='2240208']
There's a select few speaking sense here but come guys, I thought EVERYONE on this forum is a MUSICIAN. Clearly not...
[/quote]
Well everyone on here isn't a bass player...

[risingson]

David Byrne makes some interesting points here. He goes further than Thom Yorke in being honest about how much he owes to labels who have been willing to take a punt on his own music, a time which I now think for the majors has passed.

http://m.pitchfork.com/news/52617-david-byrne-slams-streaming-services-in-new-op-ed/

[risingson]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381515405' post='2240247']


How?

If I was distributing a free download to loads of people then, yes, I'd be depriving them of money.

But if I download a file for which I would not otherwise pay for myself then how does that affect the artist?

Perhaps I'm abnormal but I've not stopped buying music since the internet arrived. What I have done is listened to a much wider range of music than I used to. The stuff I don't like I don't buy but the likelihood is that I've bought stuff [u]because [/u]I've discovered it while listening to free copies.

If it wasn't for terabyte hard drives I'd probably delete all the stuff I've only listened to once and never will again - would that make things any better?
[/quote]

Because a product you would otherwise pay for in a shop or online you are no longer paying for, very simple consumerism. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're arguing that because yours would be an isolated case of illegal download that the benefits of a band reaching an otherwise untapped market audience is beneficial. I don't disagree, but black and white facts are that if you're not paying for a product that relies on a transaction of money for the artist to profit then the artist is losing out. A relatively small cost if it was an isolated occurrence, a bigger issue when the incidence is multiplied, at which stage your argument provides a blueprint for proponents of illegal downloads.

[Mornats]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381515405' post='2240247']
How?

If I was distributing a free download to loads of people then, yes, I'd be depriving them of money.

But if I download a file for which I would not otherwise pay for myself then how does that affect the artist?

Perhaps I'm abnormal but I've not stopped buying music since the internet arrived. What I have done is listened to a much wider range of music than I used to. The stuff I don't like I don't buy but the likelihood is that I've bought stuff [u]because [/u]I've discovered it while listening to free copies.

If it wasn't for terabyte hard drives I'd probably delete all the stuff I've only listened to once and never will again - would that make things any better?
[/quote]

Now this really ins't about Spotify in the slightest. Can we not cloud the issue by discussing illegally downloading music? Spotify is not an illegal download service. Any qualms about how much the artists get paid or not should be directed to their record labels who negotiated the money with Spotify.

[BigRedX]

Spotify's success comes from the deal they did with the major record labels, that was poor from the artist's PoV but good for the record labels since it provided a new source of revenue from product that had already made a profit or had been written off.

Where Spotify will struggle is with the next generation of artists for whom life without major label support has become the norm. A band that has built up an audience solely through their own hard work is not going to settle for the paltry royalty rates that Spotify currently pays. This will mean either an increase in the cost to listeners of the premium service and more ads for the free one or significant gaps appearing in the catalogue as the next generation of popular artists decide that Spotify is no longer a cost effective way of reaching listeners.

Also Spotify's current power lies in only having to deal with a handful of major labels and a similar number of aggregators (who represent the smaller lables and "unsigned" bands). When the majority of new bands are "unsigned" because record labels can't afford to have anything worthwhile to offer them and Spotify find itself having to deal with every important new band individually they will no longer have the power. The importance of the service lies in the catalogue. Without new artists it will stagnate and die.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1381582198' post='2240933']
Now this really ins't about Spotify in the slightest. Can we not cloud the issue by discussing illegally downloading music? Spotify is not an illegal download service. Any qualms about how much the artists get paid or not should be directed to their record labels who negotiated the money with Spotify.
[/quote]

Sort of. I agree that the royalty issues with spotify is a separate issue but from the listeners perspective there's not much difference between downloading a file for free and streaming it for free. The legal technicalities might be different but the end result is the same - people listening to music without having to pay, and that's the world in which people are growing up today.

[Mornats]

Hmm, I do see a huge difference between the two still. When you say streaming for free, do you mean the ad-supported version of Spotify? Because that still generates money so we're not listening to it for free, someone (the advertiser) is paying for us to listen to it. Whilst I agree that the money going to artists is pitiful, this is still not the same as illegally downloading music. I wouldn't say it's a technicality difference either! It's kinda like saying that watching ITV is taking money away from television as you're not paying to watch it. Ad-supported still = revenue generation.

But you do make a good point about there being people growing up listening to music for "free". But I would go back to my original argument - the music industry sat by and let Apple and Spotify create online models that worked and the music industry got stiffed by them both. What were the labels doing whilst those companies were innovating? Oh yeah, they were suing their customers and fans. So the music industry have created this problem themselves. I'd like to swing criticism of the low revenue from streaming services back round to the labels. As I mentioned before, they negotiated the rights. No one had a gun to their head to sign the deals and without those deals Spotify would have nothing to sell and no business.

Something I found interesting that is probably relevant is back when allofmp3.com was selling albums for £2.50 - £4.00. They sold bucketloads. Perhaps allofmp3.com stumbled upon the ideal price point that tipped consumers over into buying music in huge amounts. So the record labels saw this model, shut the site down and continued selling at £7.99 an album on iTunes and up to £15 in HMV and look where they are now - fighting rampant piracy and trickling cash in via Spotify. I'm aghast at their short-sightedness. I really am.

[Zenitram]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1381593456' post='2241176']
illegally downloading music[/quote]

Downloading music isn't illegal; uploading it is.

Apparently.

[Mornats]

[quote name='Zenitram' timestamp='1381593715' post='2241179']
Downloading music isn't illegal; uploading it is.

Apparently.
[/quote]

Still not the same as streaming music from Spotify though

[BigRedX]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381591127' post='2241143']
Sort of. I agree that the royalty issues with spotify is a separate issue but from the listeners perspective there's not much difference between downloading a file for free and streaming it for free. The legal technicalities might be different but the end result is the same - people listening to music without having to pay, and that's the world in which people are growing up today.
[/quote]

They might both be free for the listener, but for the artist there is an important distinction, in that when someone streams music from a service like Spotify, it is tracked, recorded and there is a payment. The artist can see how many times their tracks are streamed and even if the current royalty rate means that the payout is almost vanishingly small for most artists it is better than nothing which is what they get from a non-authorised download.

[gjones]

[quote name='chrkelly' timestamp='1381514134' post='2240208']
There's a select few speaking sense here but come guys, I thought EVERYONE on this forum is a MUSICIAN. Clearly not...
[/quote]

Most of the people on this forum expect to get paid for the work they do but don't expect to have to pay for other peoples work.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Which is either corporate homogenized sh*t or amateur crap which the artists would have difficulty giving away.

[Mornats]

I'm paying for my music through my £10 a month Spotify subscription. If you think this is too low an amount, speak to the sellers, not the buyers or the saleperson in the middle.

[tedmanzie]

This thread makes me think about what constitutes 'ownership' of an idea in the first place. I've often read something along the lines of 'I'm just channeling the universe into my music' or 'The music is all around us, I was lucky enough to grab a piece of it' etc.

I don't argue against the necessary skill to bring these ideas to life, but there is nothing 'written in stone' to suggest that you consequently own that idea once you write it down. The idea that the musician is due some renumeration is because of the consumerist society we live in - make something, own it, sell it. For the past 70 years (ish) the record companies, publishers and musicians have made billions and billions of pounds from this system. But it looks like its not going to hold up for much longer.

I think long term we are heading towards a society where there is [i]no money at all to be made from creativity of any sort[/i]. What do we do then?!

Help

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1381593456' post='2241176']
But I would go back to my original argument - the music industry sat by and let Apple and Spotify create online models that worked and the music industry got stiffed by them both. What were the labels doing whilst those companies were innovating? Oh yeah, they were suing their customers and fans. So the music industry have created this problem themselves. I'd like to swing criticism of the low revenue from streaming services back round to the labels. As I mentioned before, they negotiated the rights. No one had a gun to their head to sign the deals and without those deals Spotify would have nothing to sell and no business.
[/quote]

Agreed. And presumably the industry also negotiates the deals that allow newspapers to give away CDs (and DVDs) of stuff for free - and other similar 'promotional' initiatives.

I appreciate such things mean that someone else is effectively paying for us to listen to the music for free but my point is that it's creating a society in which people are becoming used to being able to access/obtain/download/listen/whatever music pretty much for free and on demand. It devalues music.

When I was a teenager I had a modest record collection and it was a thing of great value to me - not only because I had paid good money for it from my paper round and saturday jobs (i.e. it took me significant effort to acquire) but because it was the only way I could listen to my favourite music.

Today, all anyone needs is a smartphone or PC and there is a whole world of music at their fingertips for free.

Better or worse? Well, certainly worse for the music industry and struggling musicians I suppose but I don't detect a huge amount of public sympathy or support for them so I can't see draconian laws being enforced anytime soon in an attempt to turn back the clock. Like it or not, the world has changed.

I also think that these sort of discussions are usually too introspective. Not really a criticism, given that this is a musical forum, but most people here are passionate about music and many put in a huge amount of their time and creative energy into playing and creating music that is incredibly important to them. Their whole world revolves around music - which is a fine and wonderful thing - but it's sometimes easy to lose perspective and forget that musical skill, creativity and commitment doesn't impart any special rights to the artist or obligations to the listeners.

You can spend a year (or even years) writing a bunch of songs, spend all your available money on recording, mixing and publishing them, invest all your emotional energy into the project, spend even more time and money marking and publicising them and . . . . . the likely result is that 99.9% of people will listen to it for a few minutes (if you're lucky), say "yeah, that's OK" and then go back to chatting with their mates or whatever they were doing before being so rudely interrupted with the fruits of your labours for the past year or so - perhaps even a lifetime.

It's an asymmetric relationship in which the artist invests far, far more than the vast majority of the listeners. Now make that music essentially free and it becomes even more 'throw away' for the listeners. Music is everything for the dedicated musician but it's just a bit of life's froth for everyone else.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1381674355' post='2242084']
This thread makes me think about what constitutes 'ownership' of an idea in the first place. I've often read something along the lines of 'I'm just channeling the universe into my music' or 'The music is all around us, I was lucky enough to grab a piece of it' etc.

I don't argue against the necessary skill to bring these ideas to life, but there is nothing 'written in stone' to suggest that you consequently own that idea once you write it down. The idea that the musician is due some renumeration is because of the consumerist society we live in - make something, own it, sell it. For the past 70 years (ish) the record companies, publishers and musicians have made billions and billions of pounds from this system. But it looks like its not going to hold up for much longer.

I think long term we are heading towards a society where there is [i]no money at all to be made from creativity of any sort[/i]. What do we do then?!
[/quote]

Very interesting points.