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

[xilddx]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1381317841' post='2237403']
So it's hardly news that Thom Yorke has a less-than flattering view of Spotify. Apparently this is his most recent outburst on the subject:

[url="http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2013/10/spotify-is-last-desperate-fart-of-a-dying-corpse-says-thom-yorke.html#"]http://www.hypebot.c...hom-yorke.html#[/url]!

Just interested to know what people reckon on here.
[/quote]

What the f*** is a "dying corpse"?

[xilddx]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381324233' post='2237569']
They don't need to. They've got to the point where they can self-finance a record and sell it directly to their fanbase. They sold something like 350,000 mp3 copies of King Of Limbs directly from their website. By cutting out the middleman they're in a much stronger financial position than they ever were.
[/quote]

The biggest hurdle for any band, and always has been, is getting heard. Nothing has really changed because although the technology is different now, and the way people listen to music and discover music is easier because of that, musicians still need exposure, and getting it is still as difficult, if not more so, as it ever was. There are more diverse income streams for musicians and bands now, but to make any useful money they need people with influence to see money-making opportunities and invest in production, marketing and promotion. That's something Thom Yorke doesn't need anymore. I cant really see his point about Spotify.

[steve-bbb]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1381324821' post='2237585']
What the f*** is a "dying corpse"?
[/quote]

looks a bit like one of the rolling stones but with a slightly more healthy glow

not many comments on [url="http://www.truthinshredding.com/2013/09/frank-gambale-spotify-in-my-mind-its.html"]this [/url]but Frank Gambale doesnt seem to get much support from the limited comments there are

personally i use spotify quite a bit these days as i dont watch tv at all and spend most evening listening to music and/or podcasts

[Prime_BASS]

I see artists point, but for most part I believe if someone is a fan of a tune or artist they'll usually pay more for a hard copy or at least a digital one. I know I do. Because regardless of how good mobile data gets, 4G or whatever there are still times when I'm on a train or in a shop or on the way to work or in the park, or walking my dog or dropping a deuce when I flat out have no connection so thank god I already have the 250 or so songs I listen to the most already on my phone or laptop or on a CD.

[flyfisher]

I suspect that public sentiment is against a musician being able to write one hit song and then getting rich on it for the rest of their lives. Yes, I know all the arguments about intellectual property and all that but I reckon that, when it boils right down, most people don't think it's fair that someone can do something once and live on it for the rest of their life. Joe Public can't do that with their jobs so why should musicians be any different.

I think this sentiment is the main reason why most people don't have any qualms about downloading music for free. Put them in a corner and read the law to them and they'll agree it's wrong, but their instinct tells them something else and that's why copying and free downloading is so prevalent. It's also why the same people will pay £50+ for a concert ticket - they can see that their favourite artist is actually working for their money instead of just sitting on a private island while the royalties roll in.

[Jellyfish]

I've illegally downloaded stuff, then bought album weeks later once I've decided if I've liked it or not. It's a sort of 'double-edged sword' with Spotify though. I've not downloaded any music since paying for a premium subscription, but then haven't purchased any of the music because I know that I have access to it already.

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited February 19, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[aende]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381318770' post='2237428']
I don't know what he is getting so worked up about, to be honest with you . The truth is that no one has actually listened to any of his records since O.K Computer
[/quote]

I would go so far as to say as far back as 'The Bends'....

[BigRedX]

I hurdle is getting Spotify listens translated into download/CD/vinyl sales and people going to see the band live.

Why bother buying a band's music when you can simply listen to it again on Spotify? It's not like in the days when if you wanted to hear a song when you wanted to you had no choice but to buy the record because otherwise you were at the mercy of the radio station playlists.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1381325962' post='2237614']
I see artists point, but for most part I believe if someone is a fan of a tune or artist they'll usually pay more for a hard copy or at least a digital one. I know I do. [/quote]

Thing is, people that have grown up handing over money in return for music are a dying breed (literally). Today's teenagers have never had to pay money to listen to what they want, when they want. If there's a perfectly legal service available that lets you listen to what you like for free then paying for it isn't particularly appealing. You also have to remember that this website is full of musicians and therefore our own attitudes to music are different to that of the general public. We're naturally biased towards supporting artists. Speaking for myself, though, I've bought a lot less music since spotify came out. I have a wife and child to house and feed and now instead of buying things on release day I can listen to them perfectly legally on spotify before picking them up months later when they're half the price (and thats if I even bother...)

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381326042' post='2237618']
I suspect that public sentiment is against a musician being able to write one hit song and then getting rich on it for the rest of their lives. Yes, I know all the arguments about intellectual property and all that but I reckon that, when it boils right down, most people don't think it's fair that someone can do something once and live on it for the rest of their life. Joe Public can't do that with their jobs so why should musicians be any different. [/quote]

Well the difference is that Joe Public gets paid "the going rate" for their work all at once. Most songwriters get "the going rate" in teeny, tiny increments each time someone uses it. Its the difference between a plumber charging £200 for installing a shower, or getting paid 0.0000019p each time someone uses said shower. I'm sure if someone writes the next "Yesterday" they'd probably quite happily take £20,000,000 up front rather than sign up for perpetual royalties.

[xilddx]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381326042' post='2237618']
I suspect that public sentiment is against a musician being able to write one hit song and then getting rich on it for the rest of their lives. Yes, I know all the arguments about intellectual property and all that but I reckon that, when it boils right down, most people don't think it's fair that someone can do something once and live on it for the rest of their life. Joe Public can't do that with their jobs so why should musicians be any different.

I think this sentiment is the main reason why most people don't have any qualms about downloading music for free. Put them in a corner and read the law to them and they'll agree it's wrong, but their instinct tells them something else and that's why copying and free downloading is so prevalent. It's also why the same people will pay £50+ for a concert ticket - they can see that their favourite artist is actually working for their money instead of just sitting on a private island while the royalties roll in.
[/quote]

I have never once heard this argument, Interesting. How have you formed this impression mate?

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='aende' timestamp='1381326864' post='2237647']
I would go so far as to say as far back as 'The Bends'....
[/quote]

Millions of record sales say otherwise.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1381327919' post='2237667'] I have never once heard this argument, Interesting. How have you formed this impression mate? [/quote]

I've heard that argument before, quite often from people like software engineers who see writing software as not all that different to writing music. I see where they're coming from, but I don't agree with them.

[LeftyJ]

I think I read in an interview with Dave Stewart recently that Spotify only has around 6.000.000 paying users WORLDWIDE. All the others are using the free version - which obviously doesn't generate any income. For artists to get paid more, Spotify will need a heck of a lot more paying clients.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381328320' post='2237674']
I've heard that argument before, quite often from people like software engineers who see writing software as not all that different to writing music. I see where they're coming from, but I don't agree with them.
[/quote]

Software engineers are very much in the same position as songwriters from the pre-Rock n Roll era when they were employed by publishing companies to write songs. They have traded the slim chance of a lot of money through ownership of what they write against a steady income as an employee. Each of them made that decision when they agreed to work for a company.

These days most song writers don't even have the luxury of being able to be exploited in return for a monthly wage.

[toneknob]

[quote name='LeftyJ' timestamp='1381328719' post='2237682']
All the others are using the free version - which obviously doesn't generate any income.
[/quote]

Really? What about all the adverts?

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1381328898' post='2237687']
Software engineers are very much in the same position as songwriters from the pre-Rock n Roll era when they were employed by publishing companies to write songs. They have traded the slim chance of a lot of money through ownership of what they write against a steady income as an employee. Each of them made that decision when they agreed to work for a company.

These days most song writers don't even have the luxury of being able to be exploited in return for a monthly wage.
[/quote]

I agree with you. I was just explaining where I'd heard the argument from.

[steve-bbb]

[quote name='LeftyJ' timestamp='1381328719' post='2237682']
I think I read in an interview with Dave Stewart recently that Spotify only has around 6.000.000 paying users WORLDWIDE. All the others are using the free version - which obviously doesn't generate any income. For artists to get paid more, Spotify will need a heck of a lot more paying clients.
[/quote]

ive been paying tenner a month not to be annoyed by adverts but to be honest even with a good sound card there really doesnt seem to be a great deal of discernable difference in streaming quality which they claim between the paid and unpaid service - ive occasionally let it lapse to the unpaid service and if the adverts are bearable then it is not too bad tbh - one time they had an abundance of the meerkat adverts and i ended up enjoying the ads more than my own taste in their music

my biggest criticism of spotify as an end user is the nagging advertising (artist promo) when you are a paying user, and the poor tagging of the artists - often there will be several tags for one band or artist but with slight variations on spellings and the related artists feature is often highly dubious to the extent that for example when you go and view Genesis, the related artists might not show Peter Gabriel or Steve Hackett or similar. Also just more recently have started noticing jumps in the streaming, not sure if this is buffering or my machine or the stream itself or maybe they just trying to simulate the needle skipping across the vinyl

Edited October 9, 2013 by steve-bbb

[risingson]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381318770' post='2237428']
The truth is that no one has actually listened to any of his records since O.K Computer
[/quote]

Kid A was massively successful albeit in a different way and Hail To the Thief sold insane quantities in the U.S and U.K. In Rainbows, snap. So this is quite far from being true.

Radiohead are up there with my favourite recording artists of all time, I consider them to be on a par in some ways to The Beatles in their approach to music a lot is owed to them. But Thom Yorke owes the fact that he was able to choose to distribute In Rainbows for free due to his prior success, a success in part engineered by major labels who helped market and sell his music. The middleman in music trying to profiteer from the success of others will continue to exist, just like the way we consume music will continue to evolve.

I do think Spotify can also be blamed for treating artists unethically and not giving them the right cut of royalties though. It's a business at the end of the day but we as musicians are always conscientious of the fact that without people like us, companies like Spotify and major record labels simply wouldn't exist. But conversely, Thom Yorke would have no career without the backing of major labels, so it's a catch 22.

[PaulWarning]

if big name artist are that pissed off with the payment they can just withdraw permission, no Beatles or Zep on there is there?
The truth is they get exposure which means more people come to their concerts which is where the real money is made these days

[BigRedX]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1381333119' post='2237781']
The truth is they get exposure which means more people come to their concerts which is where the real money is made these days
[/quote]

Are there actually any figures that support this? The fact is that the majority of artists making a living (or more) out of live performances are the ones who built up a following out of the old model where record sales supported gigs. It's building an audience that will go to gigs in the first place under the current model that is the sticking point for new artists.

[Marvin]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1381335006' post='2237820']
Are there actually any figures that support this? The fact is that the majority of artists making a living (or more) out of live performances are the ones who built up a following out of the old model where record sales supported gigs. It's building an audience that will go to gigs in the first place under the current model that is the sticking point for new artists.
[/quote]

Great point, and one completely missed by most.

[4000]

I have absolutely no idea what it is. Seriously.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1381327919' post='2237667']
I have never once heard this argument, Interesting. How have you formed this impression mate?
[/quote]

From observation really. I've not done any research or conducted any opinion surveys, which is why I started my post with "I suspect . . ."

But we all know that people who wouldn't dream of stealing anything from a shop are quite happy to copy stuff and/or and download it for free. We all know that music has been devalued by its free availability and being given away with newspapers and magazines. We all know that concert ticket prices have soared in recent years, yet concerts still sell-out. We all know that the likes of Macca don't need any more money. We all know that people don't like 'fat-cat' bankers who receive millions for little more than moving numbers around . . . so why should we expect those same people to think it's a good thing for someone who happens to write a popular song to also receive millions?

As I said, we can create all sorts of arguments about the value and sanctimony of intellectual property, we can even enshrine these arguments into law, which of course we do, so why is it that so many people are apparently quite happy to ignore these arguments and laws?

[Woodinblack]

I personally don't believe that someone copies music because they don't feel that someone deserves money from it (even though I am sure there are several people that could apply to), I think people copy music because they don't think about it, there is no risk in doing it and they view it as a victimless crime, or not a crime at all, more just an accepted wrong like doing 75 on a motorway.