Spotify: musical utopia or dystopic gatekeeper?

[EliasMooseblaster]

I stumbled across this in today's Graun, and apart from being alarmed that Spotify had been around for 10 years already, I found both cases quite interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/oct/05/10-years-of-spotify-should-we-celebrate-or-despair

For a bit of fun - or some stiff debate if you prefer - which side of the fence do you find yourself on? Ten years on, is Spotify ultimately a force for good or evil?

[project_c]

Just my take on it - I think there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with streaming music replacing previous formats, but the money aspect has to change. 

The current model that’s in place has worked well as an alternative to torrenting, but it has completely fkd up how much financial value the world places on music. If the current system continues, music culture will completely disappear, and we will be left with a nice library of 20th century music and very little else of any genuine cultural value.

Musicians, like anyone else, have to be able to make a living from what they do in order to dedicate time to creating meaningful things. Without that, it’s always going to be a part-time occupation for those who don’t want to follow the clickbait model. Currently we have nothing but clickbait garbage driving the ‘industry’ forward, and that’s not good.

So for me streaming is good, but the Spotify model is shïte. And btw I have a paid subscription to Spotify because it has most of the great jazz records within easy reach, but I would never use it to find new music, soundcloud and bandcamp are better platforms for that.

[Stylon Pilson]

I've tried writing a response to this post about four times now. After chucking it away and restarting repeatedly, I now see that @project_c has written something that is basically 90% of what I was trying to say, so I'll just direct you towards that.

S.P.

[BreadBin]

I use Spotify quite a bit - have a £10/month subscription, it's very convenient. However anyone I really like I will send money as directly as possible via one of the various means available today like Bandcamp etc...

[spongebob]

I've never used Spotify, but have been a Google Play subscriber for some years (same kind of thing). Being a subber, you don't have to suffer the adverts.

I've said it time and time over, for a tenner a month, I think it's amazing what you get. Do I feel guilty? Not a bit. I spent so much money on CD's and vinyl - some amazing, some amazingly bad, I feel I paid my musical dues!

Only thing to blame is the music industry/business. I never heard artists whinging in the '90s when they were flogging every single as a 2-CD set, with extra tracks on the 7" and cassingle. Maybe they should have spent less on the Bolivian marching powder!

For me, I think that music has been in a dire state since the the millennium.We now have the greatest access ever to recorded music, but as a creative entity, I feel it's in full decline.

Whereas albums used to be hard to get or deleted entirely, every new release is in competition with virtually everything ever made. Given the quality of what's already out there, that's a hard sell indeed.

[ambient]

I never use it, and will never use it.

If I want to listen to a particular artist then I’ll buy their music, preferably from them direct or via Bandcamp.

[ambient]

1 minute ago, spongebob said:

 

For me, I think that music has been in a dire state since the the millennium.We now have the greatest access ever to recorded music, but as a creative entity, I feel it's in full decline.

 

I totally disagree with that. I was only saying on Facebook two days ago that I think the currently creative music scene is the healthiest it’s ever been. Mainly I think due to technology enabling artists to produce music at home, and also thanks to sites like Bandcamp that allow them to sell it.

On the other hand if you mean the music heard on mainstream radio then I’m probably going to agree to a point.

[BreadBin]

Music most certainly isn't in decline!

Go and listen to Fjokra...

[Happy Jack]

I've listened to Spotify a few times. It wasn't life-changing.

It's a bit like having a cable TV package with all the bells & whistles. It makes available far, FAR more stinky poo than you ever realised was out there.

 

[Al Krow]

Back in my yoof to have a great record collection was blo*ody expensive.

Music is one of the greatest treasures that humankind has.

Now a VAST amount of music is available to anyone who can access wifi.

How amazing is that?

[bartelby]

I'd rather buy from the artist/label if I can to ensure as much money as possible goes to the artist.

Not £0.00.0000000346 per play

 

 

Convenience for the consumer means flip all if artists can't earn enough to make more music... 

Edited October 5, 2018 by bartelby

[PatrickJ]

I subscribe to Apple Music (surely the eviliest of the evil).

It's amazing value for the consumer.  Where I used to spend £30-£40 on a few CDs a month; some good, most average, I now have almost unlimited music at the click of a button for £15 a month (family membership) - fully integrated with my car audio, my phone, Sonos systems, wireless headphones and my laptop.

I've discovered music from bands and genres I would never have taken a risk on before. Surely as an artist this is a good thing!!   The ability to reach potential fans, globally, is easier than ever before.

As for the commercials, I should really do some research on what the impact is to the artist.  I'm very unimformed on the comparisons between how much an artist received for an album outside the top 40 chart 10 years ago to how much they earn from digital sales and streaming plays now.

Do streaming services lessen the impact of piracy ?  Do you have longer sustained revenue on back catalogues of work (if I find an artist I like I will add many old recordings to my library too), wouldn't have done that with CDs or Cassettes.

I can't see that I've noticed a significant change or decline in the life styles / celebritism of the biggest pop artists today than 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

I'm also interested in understanding the impact on session musicians and recording engineers - is the new commercial model having an impact their businesses (positively or negatively).

[BigRedX]

As I say each time the subject of streaming comes up I'm amazed at how many people have apparently ditched their vinyl and CD collections in favour of something that mostly requires and internet connection and could quite easily be gone tomorrow. The important thing to remember is that NONE of the streaming services actually make any money. They are either loss leaders for the parent company's profitable divisions or being propped up by fickle investor confidence (and what will happen if that confidence should evaporate?)

For me they are fine for checking out music provided that it was released in the last 10 years and is broadly US/UK centric. However none of the current services will ever replace my CDs and vinyl because there is far too many artists and albums that I consider essential listening, missing.

[FinnDave]

I haven't used Spotify for a few years now, but do use iTunes. I use it mainly so I have music I want to hear available to me in my car via my phone - if I play CDs int eh car, then I can't use my phone's satnav. I also use it for learning new songs as it is easier to isolate and repeat segments that I need to work on, but I buy CDs all the time and much prefer listening to them. I just ordered several more CDs from the Grateful Dead's site in the States, knowing that the band and its business get the money, not a bunch of techno nerds in some internet company.

If musicians don't get more than a pittance for their work, then we'll only be able to listen to what the system dictates we can listen to, there will be no innovation.

[Oopsdabassist]

Never used Spotify and personally can't see the point. If I hear something I like or read a good review, I'll just go buy the CD.  I like things simple, me!

[NancyJohnson]

Spotify, Deezer, iTunes, Google, all a means to an end really.

I've paid through the teeth for albums with two decent tracks and ten of fill for longer than I can recall, haemorrhaging money on vinyl, CDs, cassettes, gigs, merchandise, DVDs and Blurays and honestly I don't give a rats donkey that I'm only forking over a tenner a month for music now rather than hundreds.

I still buy music in a tangible format...there'll always be shelf space for a few bands, but beyond that, nah.  

All these services are offering amaxing content in every genre; it's a brilliant thing.  The world has moved on and its not about a musical landscape any more; it's not about ownership of content (unless you're from Shoreditch). The big money is in touring and merchandise.  There's very little to be had from music itself now.

[spongebob]

This^^^!! 😀

[NancyJohnson]

Sorry, something else here to support the whole not giving a rats bottom about these artistes bemoaning the meagre payouts from all these digital platforms.

In the real world, how many people actually get paid for something they did years ago?  Think just how weird that is.  No Miss Swift, in the real world you do your hours and you get paid; you don't get paid again and again for that hole you dug seven years ago.

[ambient]

15 hours ago, NancyJohnson said:

Sorry, something else here to support the whole not giving a rats bottom about these artistes bemoaning the meagre payouts from all these digital platforms.

In the real world, how many people actually get paid for something they did years ago?  Think just how weird that is.  No Miss Swift, in the real world you do your hours and you get paid; you don't get paid again and again for that hole you dug seven years ago.

Even if that work is being used to make someone else money? If it’s used on an advert, in a film, even commercial radio is there to make the owners of the station money, so surely the owner of that music i.e the composer or songwriter or both should be paid for its use.

[NancyJohnson]

1 hour ago, ambient said:

Even if that work is being used to make someone else money? If it’s used on an advert, in a film, even commercial radio is there to make the owners of the station money, so surely the owner of that music i.e the composer or songwriter or both should be paid for its use.

I see your point, however the emphasis of my comment was about being rewarded for product you delivered potentially decades before, not about licensing a song for use elsewhere.

At the same time, if I create a piece of fantastic finance modelling software for my employer, then sadly that belongs to my employer and not me.  If they chose to resurrect that at some future date, I won't get paid for it.

 

 

[Earbrass]

18 hours ago, NancyJohnson said:

At the same time, if I create a piece of fantastic finance modelling software for my employer, then sadly that belongs to my employer and not me.  If they chose to resurrect that at some future date, I won't get paid for it.

And if said employer were to be, say, a financial software company, they may then, having paid you for it once, license its use to any number of clients, and rake in fees over and over again. Whether the fintech business may be classified as being part of the "real world", however,  I will leave others to decide.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Earbrass

[NancyJohnson]

44 minutes ago, Earbrass said:

And if said employer were to be, say, a financial software company, they may then, having paid you for it once, license its use to any number of clients, and rake in fees over and over again. Whether the fintech business may be classified as being part of the "real world", however,  I will leave others to decide.

Life sucks, doesn't it? 

I've rolled out processes and project/finance models for the last 20+ years.  (Currently out of contract folks, if anyone needs someone!)  The work I do just gets done and I get paid for it; any contract of employment will generally include a clause that the intellectual rights for anything I create for the betterment of the business will be waived.  Assume that I worked for Microsoft and I wrote a bit of code that made Windows work better, am I supposed to lay claim to this code and expect compensation in perpetuity?  I'm sorry, but no. 

Look at the case of Carolyn Davidson, the woman who designed the Nike swoosh logo.  She was paid about $40 for the design, a design that is used as the logo for a business that's now worth about a billion times more than that fee.  She waived her intellectual rights as soon as she took their money.  That Nike went out of their way some 30 years later to recompense in shares is another matter entirely.