Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Radiohead's Thom Yorke Pulls Albums From Spotify In Protest of Low Royalties

Posted by Unknown on from the world-not-missing-much dept.

First time accepted submitter rpopescu writes "Thom Yorke of Radiohead fame has pulled his solo album 'Eraser' (as well as music made as Atoms for Peace) from the music streaming service Spotify, as a protest at how much it pays the artists. Quote: '"Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."'"

67 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Everything in its right place by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

    So, it has come to this.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    1. Re:Everything in its right place by hawkinspeter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but you must be forgetting the stringent editing process that all SlashDot articles have to go through.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    2. Re:Everything in its right place by jools33 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No surprises, Before our very eyes Spotify are destroying the music industry. I Reckoner lot of what Thom says here is like all I need to hear on the music industry. I mean anyone can play Guitar, but what gives Spotify the rights to Creep around grabbing all the Dollars and Cents. Hail to the thief is what they say, call the Karma police and arrest Spotify I say! Spotify and their ilk are a bunch of High and Dry Thiefs. We should Stop Whispering and Start Shouting from the hilltops. Just the Million Dollar Question will our ranting make any difference; we might as well right a complaint to the Daily Mail for what good it will do. I might be wrong, but I think I hear the Exit Music playing for all these up and coming new bands. We should all act as the Judge, Jury and Executioner and leave Spotify; Dropped by the roadside of history like so many Stuck Together Pieces of other peoples art.

  2. Reward the artist by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Reward the artist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is more there then just money, the recording industry wants to keeps it monopoly on music. They are branching out into other countries to rob those artists of there copyrights. If you sign a deal you lose the right to control your own music, companies can re-release songs, or do whatever they want with the music. Obviously this has been talked about already, but they do not want artists to create and actually own there own music, they continue to go after artists with the DMCA take down. Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??

      The merch, profits I believe still go to record companies, but your right, money artists make from concerts is there source of revenue. Some bands are not very ggod and because they had a couple of hits (at least in the states) they act as if they reinvented music and are god.

    2. Re:Reward the artist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Musicians? That's a hobby, not a profession. If they want to get paid, let them sell t-shirts. Heh heh you'd never catch me dead wearing one of those, but maybe some get-a-lifers would. BTW I downloaded some of their songs and most of them suck. They should THANK ME and PAY ME for listening to that crap they call music. If they recorded something worthwhile I might buy a CD, in fact I did that once seven years ago.

      - typical Slashdot post

    3. Re:Reward the artist by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I will say no to that for 2 reasons.

      First, there is music that I want to listen to that does not travel well. Sometimes the original artist is dead. Sometimes, like “Einstein on the Beach” – is a 5 hour beast which requires symphony, singers, narrator, choir, and dances. It’s done about once every 10 years or so. I worked with the tour manager. Kind of fascinating on how much work it took for a performance.

      Back to the point. Some things travel better than other. It is easier to tour with a girl and a guitar then to tour with a four piece band, which is easier to tour then something that has a brass section.

      Second I live in fly over land so shows are far and few between. And when I want to spend my money I want to spend it on music – not another t-shirt – I have too many already.

      The problem is that the internet has shifted more power to the consumers and away from the producers – be they artists or record companies. Complaining that the record companies are taking a too large slice of the pie does not address the issue of the shrinking pie.

    4. Re:Reward the artist by darkitecture · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.

      Although I agree with you wholeheartedly and try to support my favorite artists as much as I can, this is nowhere near as practical for most of the world as one might first think.

      One of my closest friends is a mad Dave Matthews Band fan and has been fortunate enough to attend at least four DMB gigs over the past twelve months. I'm sure Dave Matthews and my friend are both pleased as punch about this setup. My favorite artists include amongst others David Bowie and Tom Waits. I live in Japan. Go on and have a guess how many gigs either of them have put on in Japan in the past 12 months.

      Now guess how many gigs either of them have put on here in Japan in the past 12 years.

      Hint: you could have a nasty accident with a bandsaw and still count them on one hand. Now I'm not faulting the artists or their manager or anybody. That's life unfortunately. Even if my tastes were more mainstream, I still wouldn't come close to being able to see as many concerts as most Americans. I don't see Rihanna or Jay Z or Radiohead hosting many concerts here either. Radiohead hasn't toured here since 1994!

      I've seen many of my favorite artists both here and overseas and almost without exception I've gone out of my way to get great (read: expensive) seats because I see great value for money in spending hundreds of dollars in seeing my favorite artists perform live. It's unfortunate for both me and the artists I would be willing to support that I don't live in the continental US or mainland Europe where most concerts seem to be held.

    5. Re:Reward the artist by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      The market is setting the right price. If Spotify needed to pay more it would simply have to pay more.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:Reward the artist by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The market" - or at least the free market - doesn't really apply to music. First, the government creates a new kind of property and then gives a person (or corporation) monopoly rights to it. If you could still call it a free market at that point, then the government legislates prices for certain kinds of "performances", like radio or internet radio play (which for some reason have different rates). Once that happens, the supplier is totally written out of the equation. Spotify is still a little bit markety, in that they are not a "radio station" and are instead playing stuff on-demand so they still have to negotiate with the rights holders. So your comment has some truth to it, but Spotify has to compete against Pandora (and regular radio, for that matter), who pay the government-mandated rate. That is going to seriously distort Spotify's ability to arrive at a true "market" price for recorded music, which even with government support is very close to zero.

      My artist friend hates Spotify. He'd rather get zero dollars from them than $5000, because he deems the deal to be "unfair". Um, OK. I'd take the "free" $5000, myself. It's not like Spotify is terribly profitable, laughing it's way to the bank.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Reward the artist by Endo13 · · Score: 2

      This, exactly. This is precisely what pisses me off about the entertainment industry in general. The vast majority of entertainment "artists" who are primarily in it for money seem to think they are entitled to get paid just because they're entertainment artists, and that they should get a free pass on reality.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    8. Re:Reward the artist by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Reward the artist by going to see a show and buying some merch. Nothing else really gets back to them in any significant amounts.

      This.

      I read an interview with Mick Jagger on the BBC website a few years ago and the BBC interviewer asked him about MP3 and digital downloads, figuring that Mick would likely be a stuffy old guy who would rail about how MP3s were killing music and so. Was the interviewer ever mistaken! Mick stated that for the majority of his career the Stones had actually not made all that much money from recordings. He said that there were exceptions in the late 80s into the 90s when labels actually were paying the artists a lot of money, but from his perspective MP3s hadn't changed anything and the Stones made their real money off touring. He said he had no problem with digital downloads. In fact, the Stones long ago got on iTunes and they offer special downloads of selected old concerts on a website they run. Sadly, it's somewhat younger artists like U2 who just do not get it at all and continue to bitch about how things are not what they once were.

    9. Re:Reward the artist by tbuddy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've always heard that Tom Waits was Big in Japan.

    10. Re:Reward the artist by somersault · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The record companies are setting the price. They hold an 18% share in Spotify. Still, Spotify is the only legal way for me to listen to music without buying shitloads of even more expensive albums each month. If artists want money from me directly, they need to skip the middle man.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Reward the artist by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      I'll have you know that this is so typical I thought you were serious until I got to the end.

    12. Re:Reward the artist by omfgnosis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seems like as good a time as any to post Steve Albini's article on the topic: http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17

    13. Re:Reward the artist by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that the internet has shifted more power to the consumers and away from the producers

      Problem? In our economic system, fewer and fewer transactions exist where the balance of power favors the consumer. The world has been on a "supply-side" fantasy for thirty years, and it has not gone well for most people.

      But artists have complete control over the pricing and over which distribution channels they choose to use. Once the last nails are in the coffin of the entertainment/industrial complex, you'll see that happen, and it will be better for all artists except the ones without talent at the top of the food chain.

      Thom Yorke has benefited greatly from the mainstream music industry. Now that he's on the downward slope of his career, he decides that he doesn't like how things are done any more. That's fine. I buy a lot of music that I've first heard on Spotify. If Thom doesn't want to be part of that any more, it's his choice.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Reward the artist by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??

      They are busy protecting our civil liberties and trying to prevent our country from turning into a police state. Some millionaires making tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the greed of their corporate owners may not be "just" but I'm betting it's not a real high priority for the EFF.

    15. Re:Reward the artist by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People only have so much money to spend and they are going to spend even less on that on extreme luxury items like entertainment. The fact that people don't have an infinite amount of money to spend on pop music is totally a 1st world problem.

      The real problem here is that you've got artists that aren't too bright about anything that isn't music having their heads filled with nonsense by media executives. They start drinking their own kool-aid after awhile.

      It's far more likely that the explosion of digital media of all kinds has devalued ALL forms of entertainment. If you think you can get a bigger payday from someone else then you're probably just kidding yourself.

      You have to compete against EVERYTHING that can distract your customer. This includes freebie tablet games and LOLCats.

      It's not 1950 any more.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:Reward the artist by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      Saying t-shirts and live concerts is not the answer is not saying Spotify is the answer.

      Look up economic surplus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus

      Back in the 80s, selling physical CDs with 1 or 2 good songs for $15 was a great way to extract money from the consumers – maximizing producer surplus going to artists, record companies, and distributors. That changed - You may say it was because of iTunes or Spotify – I say internet and technology - but the result is the same - producer surplus shrank.

      As for artists, I think you are wrong. Being able to write a good song does not mean you have a good voice – just look at Bob Dylan. Or are you saying (almost) all symphony players and opera singers are not musicians because they play dead peoples songs? Like you, I tend to prefer singer / songwriters but I recognize they are two separate talents that lie along different axis.

    17. Re:Reward the artist by asliarun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where is the EFF is fighting all of this??

      They are busy protecting our civil liberties and trying to prevent our country from turning into a police state. Some millionaires making tens of millions instead of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the greed of their corporate owners may not be "just" but I'm betting it's not a real high priority for the EFF.

      And there's a huge problem with precisely this type of thinking. Bands like Radiohead are trying extremely hard to "do the right thing" - i.e. what they consider fair to themselves and to their audience. We, the listeners, should be trying to prop them up instead of calling sour grapes on them because they happen to be millionaires or whatever. If you like Joe No-Name band that has sold all of 50 albums so far, good for you.

      Do remember though that your (and my) media consumption largely consists of authors, bands, movie directors, and artists that have attained some level of commercial success. It is really sad to see initiatives like Radiohead's honor based payment scheme - not be wildly successful. I would actually have loved to see Radiohead make 10 times the money from this experiment than they would have from the record label. Just imagine the message that would have sent - not just to Radiohead but to every other artist and even to us.

      Honestly, if Radiohead makes a hundred mil instead of ten mil, I wish him all the very best. Thom Yorke's talent, consistency, and hard work deserves all the money he can get. The concept of money is completely nonsensical when it comes to creative works anyway. Heck, even manufactured products nowadays cost what they cost because of factors that have little to do with their manufacturing cost.

      But at the very least, if someone is doing good work in a creative field, they should at least have some level of trust in the fact that they can circumvent the established system with its attendant bloodsucking leeches, and still feel like they are getting the same level of respect, exposure, and money. In fact, it should be a lot more.

    18. Re:Reward the artist by Nyder · · Score: 2

      I've always heard that Tom Waits was Big in Japan.

      Weird, i always thought Alphaville was Big in Japan.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    19. Re:Reward the artist by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      I tend to prefer the consumer over the producer, but I am aware that market structure is important. Starve the producers of all profits and they will collapse.

        So Artist are in complete control? So what? 100% of nothing is still nothing. It’s not that bad but take a look at the industry.

      There are fewer major acts (which I know is subjective, but I go hard numbers) and profits are getting concentrated in fewer, older acts. It is easier to sell a $400 ticket with nostalgia to a middle age affluent guy then to a new college band.

      I am seeing some people do interesting things with distribution and Kickstarter – but it is a far cry from the salad days when CDs ruled.

    20. Re:Reward the artist by OneAhead · · Score: 2

      If you like Joe No-Name band that has sold all of 50 albums so far, good for you.

      And there's a huge problem with precisely this type of thinking. You have no idea how many extremely talented and extremely good musicians there are out there. Only a few of them achieve celebrity status, and it doesn't necessarily happen because they're better than everyone else - just think of how one would define "better" - but because of arbitrary events, like the agent of a big record company liking you, or your breakthrough hit just coming out at the right time and gathering enough initial attention. Those lucky few catch a disproportionate amount of consumer spending, a majority of which goes to the pockets of the record industry, their shareholders, their lawyers, their politicians-for-hire and their yelling-contest-style promotion apparatus. Without the almighty record industry and their winner-picking one-size-fits-all promotion style, a bigger percentage of that money would be divided over a bigger and more diverse collection of artists.

      Not disagreeing with the other 90% of your post, though. Radiohead does have an impressive track record of delivering consistent quality, they are trying hard to do the right thing, and ignoring this just because they're rich is unfair. I just really wanted to point out that having those attributes (except the "being rich" part) is hardly unique. The "Joe No-Name band" mentality represents the group think that keeps the current system in place and prevents the following lofty goal from becoming reality:

      But at the very least, if someone is doing good work in a creative field, they should at least have some level of trust in the fact that they can circumvent the established system with its attendant bloodsucking leeches, and still feel like they are getting the same level of respect, exposure, and money. In fact, it should be a lot more.

  3. Pay the artists? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this guy nuts? Who gets paid for their work? Just steal it from TPB or someplace else.

    Pfft. Getting paid for their work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Pay the artists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The lazy fucks can tour if they want to earn some dosh from their music.

      Pfft. Getting paid for life for 2 weeks' work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!

    2. Re:Pay the artists? by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      Which two weeks? Do you think artists just vomit out tunes in the studio? Maybe you're listening to the wrong music.

    3. Re:Pay the artists? by internerdj · · Score: 2

      Well maybe not artists, but I'm pretty sure that is what most of the people who make their living trying to sing for my money do.

    4. Re:Pay the artists? by vakuona · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's like saying Usain Bolt gets paid for running for 10 seconds!

    5. Re:Pay the artists? by betterprimate · · Score: 3

      Pfft. Getting paid for life for 2 weeks' work. How quaint. Move into the 21st century!

      No kidding! The creators of Spotify need to get a real job!

  4. Great graphic from Information is Beautiful by blarkon · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

    I believe since the graphic was made, there has been extensive lobbying for royalties per play to be reduced from the figures shown in this picture. There's something to the original musician's case if it takes more than 4 million plays per month to get to one individual's *minimum wage* of $1160 per month (and that's with the *generous* current pay per play rate).

    1. Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful by BenJury · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's really impressive is how much more the label takes. For Spotify: 0.16c to the label, 0.029c for the artist. (~85%/15% split) That's a huge chunk for something that someone else is distributing etc.

      --
      Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
    2. Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      I still don't see what the problem is. Spotify (et al) have done their math and decided that's what they will pay. If an author doesn't like it, nobody is forcing him to sell his songs to Spotify.

      Making songs today doesn't pay as much as they expected? Well, that's so bad, they can surely find another job and leave music to people who do it because they love it.

      If a miracle killed every single person involved in the music industry and all existing music records, I'm pretty sure we'd be hearing music again before 24h had passed.

    3. Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      That's not impressive but outrageous.

      I'd be interested to see how much Spotify gets out of all this on average. Are they greedy or are they not charging us enough? If a popular artist's work gets, say, half its plays through Spotify, how much would Spotify have to charge us to provide a decent income to the artist?

      By the way, that graph seems to be comparing CDs against single songs, if I'm reading it right. Also, the retail royalty figure is deceptive, as this is rarely an $x per CD deal. Usually your get a certain % in gross revenue after which the label deducts your share of the costs (production / promotion). For starting bands the scummier labels will charge a lot, so even after a debut album that sells nicely the band will not do all that well, or even end up owing the label. Hollywood accounting at its finest.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful by MerceanCoconut · · Score: 2

      Agreed, the split is completely out of whack. For a retail CD where the label takes $1 and the artist takes $1 (for $10 album) the label is printing, distributing, and marketing. For the same album at the same price on iTunes, the label takes $5.35 with no printing or distributing and probably less marketing and gives the artist $0.94 to add insult to injury. It also suggests that a $10 retail album should sell for $6.70 on iTunes. And as you pointed out the split is even more ridiculous for streaming.

      Artists: Be your own label!

  5. Massive sense of entitlement & missing perspec by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nearly 90% of the artists who get a cheque for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year

    Technically I think that's pretty good, isn't it? Write some songs, receive residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life. Win win.

    What none of these reports seem to show is any perspective on how much the delivery service (Pandora/Spotify) is making. (Raising IPO capital isn't exactly making a profit..)

    If (without creative accounting) they're breaking even, then the artists are getting paid too much.

    If they're running at a loss, then the artists are definitely getting paid too much.

    If they're reaping in huge profits then the artists aren't getting paid enough.

    That kind of transparency isn't available (or I haven't seen it).

    Either way I'd quite like $5000 for work I did last year.

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
  6. Re:Nice graph by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spotify pays up. It's the labels that aren't sharing.

    Internet streaming services shouldn't be expected to pay any more per head than any other form of "broadcast" out there. If you put all of this stuff out of business, you will have NO ONE to help promote the talent.

    You'll be trapped in a vaccuum where no one can here you b*tch and moan and whine.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  7. Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they're running at a loss, then the artists are definitely getting paid too much.

    Or listeners are paying too little. Or the CEO of ${MUSIC_STREAMING_SERVICE} is overpaid.

    And no, if my paycheck for the last couple of weeks work were to be spread out over the remainder of my employer's lifetime as a few dollars a month, I wouldn't consider it a "good deal". People have to eat now.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  8. Re:Nice graph by somersault · · Score: 2

    With the advent of the the internet, and convenient social networking, word of mouth is a pretty good way of "promoting talent". Nobody really needs publishers any more, as long as they're good.

    I use Spotify because it's very convenient, and legal to boot. I've bought a few songs/albums on Bandcamp even since I started using Spotify though, from seeing songs posted up by friends, or in groups on Facebook.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  9. The Music Industry must Die! by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They have fucked over Artists and the IT Industry. Copyright laws that are unequitable, extensible, DRM. WTF makes the Music Companies such a protected species in business anyway? Wasn't capitalism designed to cull business models that were no longer viable?

    Seems to me that the existing music business establishment is trying to devise an internet business models that will fuck over music creative types until the end of time.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  10. Re:Misinformed, a shame by Sockatume · · Score: 2

    Unlike Spotify, radio didn't displace album sales; radio doesn't let me cue up whatever track I want, on demand.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  11. Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers by seven+of+five · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Either way I'd quite like $5000 for work I did last year.

    By "less than $5000" they don't mean "most make about $5000." A handful make $5000, a bunch make $500, the rest make $5 to $50. So enjoy the juicy hamburger you just bought with your earnings from last year.

  12. Spotify's retort by fatgraham · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/spotify-responds-to-thom-yorke-and-nigel-godrich-criticism/055383

    Doesn't seem so bad. I think Thom Yorke is missing a step... spotify pays the LABELS. The LABELS obviously decided the royalties from spotify are enough... Perhaps the labels aren't paying artists enough...

  13. Re:Just Listen on Youtube by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spotify's "basic" quality is Q5 Vorbis, which is roughly equivalent to VBR mp3 in the 192kbps range (only with better handling of edge cases than mp3). i.e. virtually transparent to most listeners on most equipment. Spotify's premium quality is Q9 vorbis, which is, well, complete overkill. Even more pointless than 320kbps cbr mp3.

    Youtube's "basic" quality is shit. Youtube's premium quality is... is there even such a thing?

    Don't misunderstand me, I find out about songs often though youtube, but then I go load the tune up on spotify to actually enjoy the music.

  14. Switch to Pay What You Want by advid.net · · Score: 2

    Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.
    I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.

    For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.

    Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.

    All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.

    1. Re:Switch to Pay What You Want by isorox · · Score: 2

      Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.

      I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.

      For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.

      Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.

      All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.

      I'm fairly sure Thom Yorke knows all about pay what you want, and How much he's likely to make

  15. Re:Misinformed, a shame by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unlike Spotify, radio didn't displace album sales; radio doesn't let me cue up whatever track I want, on demand.

    radio also paid a lot to a small circle. a circle he was part of, but now nobody gives a shit so he is trying to be all "new artist"... it ends up being the natural progression that more artists are paid - but each is paid less and he is seemingly arguing this is unfair to new artists, while the only thing unfair to new artists in this new system is the labels and they were unfair to new artists before as well... if anything he should be promoting that you don't need a label. this only affects few people on the top though at all.. like 0.1% of performing artists are actually affected("ug" is _huge_ compared to top 40).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  16. Re:Nice graph by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

    Spotify does not pay up. Labels an artists get about a 5:1 split of the payment from both iTunes and Spotify, but Spotify's payment per play is five hundred times smaller than iTunes payment per purchase. Unless each of your listeners hits that Spotify play button five hundred times, you don't make the same money by streaming.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  17. Re:This is what you get when you mess with us by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From memory Radiohead and NIN have both offered albums, available online where you can pay what you want for them, and both walked away with over $1million.

    Unless there's some crazy contract shenanigans going on, I really don't see why some of the bigger artists don't pull a Valve and create their own content delivery platform that is fair for the artist, fair for the consumer and criticism free.

    --
    The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
  18. Re:Open source music store by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    technically no. but you can't directly commit music to spotify, you need to use a content service.
    http://www.merlinnetwork.org/joining/

    plenty of very indie stuff on spotify.. for shits'n'giggles search c64 and amiga on there.
    anyone can be a "label" nowadays too. doesn't take anything.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  19. Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nearly 90% of the artists who get a cheque for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year

    Technically I think that's pretty good, isn't it? Write some songs, receive residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life. Win win.

    I think there are two issues with this kind of logic.

    The first is counter to your argument - the residual income is essentially a big part of the total compensation. When I get paid at work to do a job, I get paid the full value of the job. I don't really have an expectation of residual income. Now imagine that I'm a software developer and I get paid a share of productivity savings over time - I get paid $10k up-front for six months of work, but then I get 30% of any efficiencies the company that bought the software realizes as a result of using my software. Then the company uses accounting games to undermeasure the savings. In a situation like this the residual income was promised as the major component of the total compensation.

    On the other hand, I think that a statement that 90% of artists make less than $5000/yr is very misleading because of the way the payments tend to be distributed. With digital distribution there really is no barrier to getting your item listed. That means that I can probably play a few bars on a kazoo and put it up for sale, and maybe sell a few copies to relatives if I'm lucky. When the same service sells that alongside of a top-10 hit I don't think you can really talk about averages in any kind of meaningful way.

  20. Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you're trying to force your way as a supplier into an industry where supply already vastly exceeds demand, you should expect that to happen.

    As a poster above indicated, if you could wipe all contemporary professional musicians and their music off the face of the earth, we'd still have more new music tomorrow. People make music because they love to make music, and that will always be the case. You actually don't have to have paid professionals to supply it. Much of the stuff produced by the paid professionals isn't even that good, and gets surpassed in quality by no-name indie bands a thousand times every week.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  21. Unbelievable how Spotify replies by cerberusss · · Score: 2

    The reply from Spotify:

    "Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music," a company spokesperson said today. "We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love. Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music. We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."

    Unbelievable how they respond with corporate drivel. For me, this is the sign that no real human is at the helm and I'd rather keep downloading than give money to this faceless entity.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  22. Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers by boristdog · · Score: 2

    FWIW: I know many musicians (I live near Austin) who play and record professionally, and most of them DO have other jobs. Many are quite good, too. I've seen some of the most amazing and talented musicians playing around a campfire on my ranch. But they make maybe a couple hundred playing in clubs a couple nights a week, with the occasional big gig (usually weddings or other events) where they'll maybe clear a grand.

    It's just 1% of musicians that actually make enough to live on, and 1% of that 1% that make really stupid money doing it.

    Like anything, it's a combination of talent, luck, current trends, business acumen and charm that enables the various levels of success. Most do it because that is what they love doing - playing music. Invite them over and give them beer and you'll hear some real music.

  23. Re:This is what you get when you mess with us by jasenj1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You mean like Bandcamp? - Jasen.

  24. RH gets NOTHING for radio play by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the WSJ:

    "In the United States...radio companies pay only songwriters and music publishers, not record companies. The system, dating back almost a century, is based on the idea that radio play has enough promotional value for performers that they do not also need to be paid royalties."

    Yes, that's right - the actual performance of the song gets them NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, not one thin dime. So if Clear Channel plays a Radiohead song on 200 radio stations 100 times in a month reaching (on average) 40,000 listeners per station, that's 800 Million listener-plays for absolutely $zero.

    Remind me again why RadioHead is getting such a raw deal at $1000/4M plays, but $0 is just fine?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:RH gets NOTHING for radio play by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 2

      A band like Radiohead write their own songs; so according to what you wrote, wouldn't they be getting paid as songwriters?

    2. Re:RH gets NOTHING for radio play by jsepeta · · Score: 2

      only if your songs are played on the radio, it's tracked, and a group like ASCAP or BMI is actively seeking to enforce payments to you.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  25. Re:This is what you get when you mess with us by dcollins · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like United Artists Corporation, now part of MGM.

    By which I mean to say that endeavors that start like this wind up being "captured" over time by industry managers anyway. To keep that from happening you'd need some kind of clever artist-ownership arrangement, maybe a bit like the Vanguard Group or TIAA-CREF.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  26. Re:Lame Copout by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > I'm so tired of reading "I help myself to all their stuff but I'll buy their merch". Quit being a freeloader.

    "Stop listening to the radio you thieving scum!"

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  27. Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    You're assuming that the artist knocks out a few tunes over the weekend, and have no other costs. Mostly music takes a lot more effort, time and money to produce than that -- the stuff you want to listen to at least.

    I think he was imagining that musicians get a good fixed monthly salary that is related to the quality of their work (like I do), and on top of that get thousands and thousands every year after that for doing nothing (unlike me).

    And that's wrong on two accounts: One, they don't get a fixed amount of money for their work. And second, if someone creates music this year and next year so many people buy it that he makes $5,000, then his music must have been bloody good in the first place, so he fully deserves it. You can try to compare him to a plumber who doesn't get money forever for work he's done once, but the reason he gets that money is because he did a much better job and deserves it.

  28. Infinitely more by bobbutts · · Score: 2

    I switched from torrenting to Spotify because it is more convenient. By supplying this service, the industry turned my $0 into $120/yr Perhaps the goal is to eliminate Spotify so everyone will have to buy CD's again? Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, it would be impossible to return to the old ways.

  29. Arguments for and against by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    I'm pretty sure I read this stuff before many times...artists are not getting paid, studios overcharge, streaming services don't spread the cash etc etc.

    Historically "artists" have never been richer. I'm not sure why so many people think they can give some sort of Earth shattering performance, record it and live like millionaires for the rest of their days. Why is it that when they get paid about or below average it's some grave injustice?

    Look at the amount of poor poets out there, no one even pirates their stuff on a scale worth mentioning. Not too many poor IT experts though. No one told you what to do for a living.

    what I'm saying here is that it's a free market with all sorts of self-interested parties that do not give a damn. This is not new, this is very old. Don't hate the players, hate the game...but if you choose to play it, shut the fuck up about it.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  30. I love radiohead by fazey · · Score: 2

    You know, I really love Radiohead. Back when the RIAA started getting all hot in the pants about mp3s, Radiohead release their new album for free on their site. You simply went to the site and downloaded it, with the option of donating. Now this... Thom, and the rest of Radiohead have my respect.

  31. Re:This is what you get when you mess with us by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    I didn't really like the album that much (no offence to anyone who did), but because I could pay whatever I wanted, I think I tossed $5 their way just because I liked the whole concept, and felt like they deserved a little bit. Just like I bought that AFI album many years back, because it only $7 at the time, which I thought was probably what most CDs should cost. I'm much more interested in paying for a subscription type service to music, like RDIO or Spotify, where they have a much bigger collection then I could ever hope to own, and I can also discover new music without wasting money on albums I won't end up listening to more than 4-5 times.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  32. Re:This is what you get when you mess with us by denmarkw00t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, but in the case of the two mentioned, the members of Radiohead and Trent Reznor are all pretty adept at studio work, so there's a lot less spent hiring sound guys, producers, etc, when you can do it yourself. If you've got the money (which they do), then time/labor isn't really an issue either since you can rely on saved cash to get by while you do it your way. Not saying this will always be the case, but generally, if you can do it yourself at a fraction of the cost you would face going through an agency, you'd probably walk off in the black no problem (assuming too that your music is good and you can find a fanbase).

  33. Re:This is what you get when you mess with us by brit74 · · Score: 2
    Keep in mind the fact that Radiohead said that they won't repeat that, which makes me wonder how successful it really was.

    Radiohead won't repeat 'In Rainbows' giveaway

    "I think it was a one-off response to a particular situation," the band's lead singer Thom Yorke told The Hollywood Reporter. "It was one of those things where we were in the position of everyone asking us what we were going to do. I don't think it would have the same significance now anyway, if we chose to give something away again. It was a moment in time."

    Many music fans had hoped that the band's now famous pay-what-you-want promotion was an attempt by the group to discover a new way to sell music. Now it appears Radiohead at best was after publicity.

    Radiohead has never revealed the promotion's sales figures but there was speculation that the money wasn't very good.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932361-7.html