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

[PaulWarning]

cheap or free digital music,like spotify, has devalued it, when you had spend a bit of money on a recording you gave it a few listens to decide whether you liked it or not, now it's about 10 seconds before going on to the next track.
Now when I was a lad going home on the bus staring at the record sleeve of the cherished record I just spent my paper round money on, it was treasured and listened to many times. Now recordings have no value.
Or it could be I'm just a sentimental old fool of course.

[discreet]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1381398778' post='2238407']
Now recordings have no value. Or it could be I'm just a sentimental old fool of course.
[/quote]

It's not the recordings [i]per se[/i] that have no value - it's peoples attitude towards them. Kids just aren't into music as much now as they were thirty years ago. Any kids on here are welcome to challenge this sweeping statement. In fact, I insist on it.

[Dingus]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381392748' post='2238297']
"The majority of the sales were band-to-fan. Financially, it [The King Of Limbs] was probably the most successful record they've ever made, or pretty close. In a traditional deal, the record company takes the majority of the money."---Chris Hufford (Radiohead's manager).

Why would Radiohead want to just recycle the same old cliches or "exploit the market"? They're a multi-million selling millionaire rock band who have complete and utter artistic control over their music. They do what they want and yet they still sell out huge tours, get great reviews, are regularly acclaimed as one of the best artists of all time, and make just as much money as they ever did. Stupid, stupid Radiohead.
[/quote]

The point I am trying to make to you is that , although direct sales are usually proportionately more lucrative in terms of the percentage returned to the band, the trade-off is that ultuimately the band sell a smaller number of records . If Radiohead had been cajoled into making an album that sold in huge quantities over a prolonged period [i]a la[/i] Dark Side Of The Moon they would have made more even after the record company took their cut, as well as enjoyed all the periforal benefits of that mainstream success

. Radiohead may have plenty of money but they could have made much more . They decided they wanted to make an artistic statement by being purposefully obtuse , in the full knowledge that they were already established enough to take a huge audience with them . Without the conventional music industry they would never have established that audience , so in a certain sense it is inconsistant with the truth, to put it diplomatically, for them to be so dismissive of that industry. It is also more than a little disingenuous to portray themselves as taking a stance against exploitation when, if it suits their own ends, they are not averse to cynical exploitation both of their fans and the industry which has nurtured them .

Unless you are a hardcore Radiohead afficianado, all their records since O.K Computer are fairly impenetrable and unlikely to be familiar to you . Like so many bands, having a loyal fan base who are receptive to whatever they do has allowed them to get lost in a mire of self indulgence and still survive .

[flyfisher]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381396298' post='2238369']
You may not have deprived them of anything physical, but you have still deprived them of an opportunity to earn.
[/quote]

That's what the music industry want you to believe and how they calculate their 'losses', but I don't see it myself.

If I have no intention of buying a piece of music then I'm not an 'opportunity to earn' as far as that artist is concerned.

If I then copy that music for free, the artist has lost nothing. I wouldn't have bought it anyway but no one else is being deprived of the opportunity to buy it for themselves.

So how has the artist lost anything?

[Dingus]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381395779' post='2238358']
It sounds like you've listened to a bit of the band, read a bit about the band and then have gone and made some sweeping and misinformed conclusions about the band. I'm not sure which yardstick you've chosen to measure the success of Radiohead post-OK Computer but I think you're misinformed on the subject and if you're suggesting Radiohead became some sort of commercial failure then you're completely off-target. 'Maverick independent releases'? When did EMI become a maverick independent label?
[/quote]

"Maverick independent release" is how the band present their recordings to the public , a stance which is undermined if they are relying on EMI.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between commercia faliure and relative commercial faliure. The yardstick by which I am measuring the success of Radiohead post-OK Computer is the populist appeal of their music, and it has very little of that .

[flyfisher]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1381396732' post='2238373']
You'd be 'stealing' the opportunity that BMW would have had to legitimately sell that person a car.
[/quote]

On the contrary, you'd be [u]creating[/u] an opportunity for BMW to sell the theft victim another car.

[neepheid]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381408283' post='2238605']
That's what the music industry want you to believe and how they calculate their 'losses', but I don't see it myself.

If I have no intention of buying a piece of music then I'm not an 'opportunity to earn' as far as that artist is concerned.

If I then copy that music for free, the artist has lost nothing. I wouldn't have bought it anyway but no one else is being deprived of the opportunity to buy it for themselves.

So how has the artist lost anything?
[/quote]

If you have "no intention of buying" it then why do you still harbour an intention to acquire it?

What about independent releases? What has the music industry at large got to do with some poor wee band that has invested their own hard cash into getting a CD out there? Are you going to acquire that rather than buy it?

[Marvin]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381408397' post='2238608']
"Maverick independent release" is how the band present their recordings to the public , a stance which is undermined if they are relying on EMI.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between commercia faliure and relative commercial faliure. The yardstick by which I am measuring the success of Radiohead post-OK Computer is the populist appeal of their music, and it has very little of that .
[/quote]

What utter nonsense. Kid A went platinum in it's first week of release in the Uk, if that's a failure in any way shape or form I'd surely like to fail. In Rainbows sold 3m copies in it's first year.

I for one would be extremely happy to be making music that for filled me and had such commercial success. Thank goodness that Radiohead didn't take the route you suggest, the last thing we need is another Coldplay album

[risingson]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381408397' post='2238608']


"Maverick independent release" is how the band present their recordings to the public , a stance which is undermined if they are relying on EMI.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between commercia faliure and relative commercial faliure. The yardstick by which I am measuring the success of Radiohead post-OK Computer is the populist appeal of their music, and it has very little of that .
[/quote]

The start part of this post is definitely true but come on, bands are presented in all sorts of ways by label PR. The reality is never presented properly and I would be the first to agree that Thom owes his success to the majors.

And with that aside, the stats stack against your argument massively. As has already been pointed out to you Radiohead are not a commercial or a relative commercial failure, they have been masters of their own destinies of late and have actively chosen to distribute their own music in their own way - having been hugely successful either way. Your Coldplay simile made me laugh too, their success hinged on the fact that Radiohead had opened numerous doors that led to the success of bands like Muse and Coldplay to walk through. Their decision to alter their approach to music was a conscious effort to evolve their music without the pressure of the fans of their previous work pressing for more of the same, and still they proved successful. Sounds more like you take issue with the band than anything else, reminiscent of the Beatles thread actually... refusing facts staring the critics in the face.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381407624' post='2238588']
The point I am trying to make to you is that , although direct sales are usually proportionately more lucrative in terms of the percentage returned to the band, the trade-off is that ultuimately the band sell a smaller number of records . If Radiohead had been cajoled into making an album that sold in huge quantities over a prolonged period [i]a la[/i] Dark Side Of The Moon they would have made more even after the record company took their cut, as well as enjoyed all the periforal benefits of that mainstream success [/quote]

They didn't want to make Dark Side Of The Moon. They wanted to make Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows, etc. Going down a path they didn't want to go down just so that they could sell 10,000,000 records instead of 2,000,000 would almost certainly have led to the band splitting up. They just don't want to be that band, and in plenty of interviews at the time they made it clear that they all felt they really needed to move on.

[quote]Radiohead may have plenty of money but they could have made much more . They decided they wanted to make an artistic statement by being purposefully obtuse ,[/quote]

Making the music you want to make is being "purposefully obtuse" is it?

[quote] Without the conventional music industry they would never have established that audience , so in a certain sense it is inconsistant with the truth, to put it diplomatically, for them to be so dismissive of that industry. It is also more than a little disingenuous to portray themselves as taking a stance against exploitation when, if it suits their own ends, they are not averse to cynical exploitation both of their fans and the industry which has nurtured them .[/quote]

Everyone knows the record industry treats artists badly. Why aren't Radiohead allowed to voice that opinion?

Have you got any examples of Radiohead's "cynical exploitation" of their fans or have you just made that up? They sell records at a very reasonable price ("King Of Limbs" was £6, I think). They gave "In Rainbows" away. Thats about as far away from exploitation as you can get.

[quote]Unless you are a hardcore Radiohead afficianado, all their records since O.K Computer are fairly impenetrable and unlikely to be familiar to you . Like so many bands, having a loyal fan base who are receptive to whatever they do has allowed them to get lost in a mire of self indulgence and still survive .
[/quote]

And now we come to the crux of it: you just don't like Radiohead. Thats cool, but don't pretend that just because you couldn't get into Kid A that Radiohead are---by any measure---a failure. I don't even listen to them all that often but there is absolutely no denying that they are one of the most successful stories of the last fifteen years.

[Dingus]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1381411518' post='2238677']
What utter nonsense. Kid A went platinum in it's first week of release in the Uk, if that's a failure in any way shape or form I'd surely like to fail. In Rainbows sold 3m copies in it's first year.

I for one would be extremely happy to be making music that for filled me and had such commercial success. Thank goodness that Radiohead didn't take the route you suggest, the last thing we need is another Coldplay album
[/quote]
[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381411590' post='2238678']
The start part of this post is definitely true but come on, bands are presented in all sorts of ways by label PR. The reality is never presented properly and I would be the first to agree that Thom owes his success to the majors.

And with that aside, the stats stack against your argument massively. As has already been pointed out to you Radiohead are not a commercial or a relative commercial failure, they have been masters of their own destinies of late and have actively chosen to distribute their own music in their own way - having been hugely successful either way. Your Coldplay simile made me laugh too, their success hinged on the fact that Radiohead had opened numerous doors that led to the success of bands like Muse and Coldplay to walk through. Their decision to alter their approach to music was a conscious effort to evolve their music without the pressure of the fans of their previous work pressing for more of the same, and still they proved successful. Sounds more like you take issue with the band than anything else, reminiscent of the Beatles thread actually... refusing facts staring the critics in the face.
[/quote]
[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381412083' post='2238684']
They didn't want to make Dark Side Of The Moon. They wanted to make Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows, etc. Going down a path they didn't want to go down just so that they could sell 10,000,000 records instead of 2,000,000 would almost certainly have led to the band splitting up. They just don't want to be that band, and in plenty of interviews at the time they made it clear that they all felt they really needed to move on.



Making the music you want to make is being "purposefully obtuse" is it?



Everyone knows the record industry treats artists badly. Why aren't Radiohead allowed to voice that opinion?

Have you got any examples of Radiohead's "cynical exploitation" of their fans or have you just made that up? They sell records at a very reasonable price ("King Of Limbs" was £6, I think). They gave "In Rainbows" away. Thats about as far away from exploitation as you can get.



And now we come to the crux of it: you just don't like Radiohead. Thats cool, but don't pretend that just because you couldn't get into Kid A that Radiohead are---by any measure---a failure. I don't even listen to them all that often but there is absolutely no denying that they are one of the most successful stories of the last fifteen years.
[/quote]

You all are unable or unwilling to see what I am saying to you . I could( and probably will when I an so hung-over) wax lyrical to you about how and why Radiohead and their music are so dreadful , but that aside, the simple fact is that than un-commericial-sounding songs are, well, ... just not as commercial! They have lost their crossover, mainstream appeal and it that which gives massive sales, and massive sales means more money for everybody. The rest is hyperbole.

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381412904' post='2238700']
You all are unable or unwilling to see what I am saying to you . I could( and probably will when I an so hung-over) wax lyrical to you about how and why Radiohead and their music are so dreadful , but that aside, the simple fact is that than un-commericial-sounding songs are, well, ... just not as commercial! They have lost their crossover, mainstream appeal and it that which gives massive sales, and massive sales means more money for everybody. The rest is hyperbole.
[/quote]

Radiohead aren't motivated by money. They're not motivated by selling as many records as possible. If they were, they'd have "done a coldplay". They're motivated by making the records that they want to make. I think its you that is unwilling to see what is being said.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381411508' post='2238676']
If you have "no intention of buying" it then why do you still harbour an intention to acquire it?
[/quote]

Motivations are irrelevant to the issue of whether the artist is losing anything. There could be a million reasons why someone might copy music instead of paying for it (more likely a different reason why millions of people copy music) but none of them make any difference.

The point is that copying music doesn't mean the artist loses anything.

I would suggest that, historically, music sales may have been higher because people would buy music they didn't feel great about because there was no alternative.

I'd bet we all have records we've bought, played once and never played again. Well once upon a time that would have been a sale. These days we still listen to loads of music once, but we do it through spotify or youtube and if we don't like it we move on. Yet we still buy the stuff we really like.

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381411508' post='2238676']
What about independent releases? What has the music industry at large got to do with some poor wee band that has invested their own hard cash into getting a CD out there? Are you going to acquire that rather than buy it?
[/quote]

What has an independent, self-funded release got to do with anything? All that matters is whether people like the music or not.

[neepheid]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381413495' post='2238714']
Motivations are irrelevant to the issue of whether the artist is losing anything. There could be a million reasons why someone might copy music instead of paying for it (more likely a different reason why millions of people copy music) but none of them make any difference.

The point is that copying music doesn't mean the artist loses anything.

I would suggest that, historically, music sales may have been higher because people would buy music they didn't feel great about because there was no alternative.

I'd bet we all have records we've bought, played once and never played again. Well once upon a time that would have been a sale. These days we still listen to loads of music once, but we do it through spotify or youtube and if we don't like it we move on. Yet we still buy the stuff we really like.

What has an independent, self-funded release got to do with anything? All that matters is whether people like the music or not.
[/quote]

You were the one who brought up the music industry in the first place, hence my offering of an example outside of that. But whatever, I think you're wrong, I'm entitled to think you're wrong, and you are entitled to feel the same towards me.

[Dingus]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381413408' post='2238712']
Radiohead aren't motivated by money. They're not motivated by selling as many records as possible. If they were, they'd have "done a coldplay". They're motivated by making the records that they want to make. I think its you that is unwilling to see what is being said.
[/quote]

I know that, ostensibly at least, they are not motivated by money or by courting record sales ( although it has to be said , it is easy not be motivated by money if you have already got lots of it) . That is the whole point of what I am saying: their music would probably be a lot better if they were motivated by those things ! Instead they have spent over a decade churning out all kinds of turgid rubbish in the name of art . Populism has an important role in pop music for a very good reason. Radiohead have indeed made the records they wanted to make , and by and large they are not very good records .

Edited October 10, 2013 by Dingus

[risingson]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381416936' post='2238799']
That is the whole point of what I am saying: their music would probably be a lot better if they were motivated by those things ! Instead they have spent over a decade churning out all kinds of turgid rubbish in the name of art .
[/quote]

'Better'? 'Better' according to who? It's just that you seem to be confusing your own personal opinion of the band with the millions and millions of people globally that would disagree with your notion that the music they've been making since 1997 has gotten somehow worse, that is if we're going off of album sales, sold out arenas and festival bookings etc. The reality is that it's simply evolved into something you either don't like or perhaps don't understand.

I get that Radiohead's albums post '97 are like marmite, especially stuff like Kid A that polarises opinion amongst people that don't like or 'get' their move into electronica (so is Coldplay's new music and direction by the way amongst older fans, which is why it's tremendously ironic you used them as an example). But quite why Radiohead should be 'populist' is beyond me. Is that what bands have to do once they've had initial success? And according to who?

Your original quote without taking it out of context read like this:

[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]

Which without question is a falsity isn't it? You are trying to pass off your personal opinion in support of an argument that is completely flawed.

[Dingus]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381425772' post='2239026']
'Better'? 'Better' according to who? It's just that you seem to be confusing your own personal opinion of the band with the millions and millions of people globally that would disagree with your notion that the music they've been making since 1997 has gotten somehow worse, that is if we're going off of album sales, sold out arenas and festival bookings etc. The reality is that it's simply evolved into something you either don't like or perhaps don't understand.

I get that Radiohead's albums post '97 are like marmite, especially stuff like Kid A that polarises opinion amongst people that don't like or 'get' their move into electronica (so is Coldplay's new music and direction by the way amongst older fans, which is why it's tremendously ironic you used them as an example). But quite why Radiohead should be 'populist' is beyond me. Is that what bands have to do once they've had initial success? And according to who?

Your original quote without taking it out of context read like this:



Which without question is a falsity isn't it? You are trying to pass off your personal opinion in support of an argument that is completely flawed.
[/quote]

Millions of people would disagree with me about all kinds of things, but good taste and good judgement have never neccesarilly been a the prerogative of the masses.

Your quote is in fact out of context because my original comment is meant to be a humourous way of pointing to the fact that we all agree on , i.e that after O.K Computer the band made a very deliberate effort to make uncommercial , "difficult" -sounding music. That is significant in so much as Thom Yorke is railing against Spotify and the music industry in general , whilst at the same time he has done all he can to undermine that industry's ( which put him in his exalted position in the first place ) legitmate right to make a profit out of the artists it nurtures. By implication then , he shouldn't be surprised if that industry then takes whatever oppotunities are left to try and remain profitable , and he has no right to complain if he finds that unpalatable. .

Edited October 10, 2013 by Dingus

[risingson]

The crux of your post I can agree with and indeed I have done so from the start (read my first post) but your personal opinion of the band is stopping any subjectivity in your overall argument, which is a shame. I suppose it would be convenient to treat that initial post of yours as an attempt at humour now you've been offered multiple evidence to the contrary!

[Dingus]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381427275' post='2239042']
The crux of your post I can agree with and indeed I have done so from the start (read my first post) but your personal opinion of the band is stopping any subjectivity in your overall argument, which is a shame. I suppose it would be convenient to treat that initial post of yours as an attempt at humour now you've been offered multiple evidence to the contrary!
[/quote]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here , but, in any case , I can assure you that I do not take Radiohead as seriously as they appear to take themselves.

[paul h]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381427600' post='2239045']
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here , but, in any case , I can assure you that I do not take Radiohead as seriously as they appear to take themselves.
[/quote]

Nobody does

[flyfisher]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1381415269' post='2238756']
But whatever, I think you're wrong, I'm entitled to think you're wrong, and you are entitled to feel the same towards me.
[/quote]

Wrong about what? I've been asking someone, anyone, to explain how an artist loses out if someone who wouldn't normally buy their music makes a copy of it instead?

I'm genuinely open to an explanation.

[risingson]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381428531' post='2239061']
I've been asking someone, anyone, to explain how an artist loses out if someone who wouldn't normally buy their music makes a copy of it instead?

I'm genuinely open to an explanation.
[/quote]

They lose out on money obviously, providing the band have made their music in part to generate some money.

[flyfisher]

But it's not so obvious if you really think about it.

There is loads of music out there that I would never ever buy but I might download a copy for free, listen to it once and then never again - 'take it or leave it' music. How is that depriving an artist of any money?

[BigRedX]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381431553' post='2239102']
But it's not so obvious if you really think about it.

There is loads of music out there that I would never ever buy but I might download a copy for free, listen to it once and then never again - 'take it or leave it' music. How is that depriving an artist of any money?
[/quote]

But you don't need to download to "try before you buy". Streaming services like Spotify or YouTube give you plenty of legal opportunities to check out pretty much anything before you decide whether or not to part with your cash, for a paid for download or actual physical product. I have pretty obscure tastes in music but I haven't needed to resort to a dodgy download to check out any band for the last 10 years.

[flyfisher]

Fair point. In that respect there's no real practical difference between copying music or streaming is there? Spotify pays artists hardly anything (as previously noted) and youtube is full of unauthorised uploads. Actually, youtube is another good example of how someone can browse loads of stuff, downloading as they wish, without any intention of ever paying anything. If youtube disappeared tomorrow I doubt that many people would suddenly rush out and buy loads of DVDs so, again, how are the artists actually losing out?