You probably heard about it yesterday as both Pitchfork and The Guardian carried articles on Thom Yorke vs Spotify, as he and producer Nigel Godrich have pulled their work off of the Spotify network. Their point is that the way Spotify pays may (or may not) work out for those who have a large catalog of music, but actively hurts those who do not - read small indie labels and new bands. The Radiohead star says 'new artists get paid fuck all' on the streaming service, and producer Nigel Godrich adds 'it's bad for new music' just to be clear. What you're left with are MegaStars and hobbyists, no more sessions musicians in between who make a middleclass living just like your pedestrian office manager. "They can tour!" I hear you say, while I ponder how music producers and sound recording engineers tour, and who really wants all those t-shirts you think artists should make a living on instead. There are only so many casual fridays in our working lives.
On twitter, the checking off the list of "things we say when rich$ artists raise a good point" began at once. Step one, accuse producer & artist of being greedy/whiny only because they have shitty deals:
And just to be perfectly clear, Spotify isn't giving major labels preferential treatment because they are the Big Bad Music Biz® , that everyone loves to hate and blame for everything. Big Bad Music Biz wins no matter what,as they are major shareholders in Spotify. Meet your new King, same as the old King. Of course, the usual arguments that "fat cat middlemen have to accept a smaller cut" will be trotted out right around now, ignoring that neither Yorke nor Godrich are middlemen, and also ignoring that Spotify technically is, so in theory their cut should be small then, right? Apparently they aren't making much money at Spotify, because that too is used as an argument as to why one should accept a no-pay situation from Spotify in particular.
@dabitch Profit rich? Since when did Spotify make a profit. They're still not there yet as far as I know.
Spotify is one of the biggest and fastest growing gatekeepers to streaming music. It's got a deal with facebook and has invaded the USA. Lets not pick on them, poor wee things. They only have six million paid subscribers, and a tail of similar services with similar business models following in their footsteps.
@dabitch@nigelgod And pulling your music from Spotify instead of having a discussion with Daniel Ek is the right way to go about it?
Yes, once the business model of Spotify - who like Ikea's lamp has no feelings and no intentions because it is not a human - gets to grow in peace to be so large that Big Bad Music® labels (who own it) has to use them, they'll change their successful model and start paying people. What? This is like listening to a five year olds logic when they try negotiate a later bedtime. Go to bed, it's a schoolnight. Indie artists aren't bankers floating Spotify some cash until they can actually make a living on their idea, and saying the only other option is people will simply pirate the music, ie do something illegal, is silly. As if the 99 cent stores of Apple, Itunes, Google Play and a bunch of other ways of legally acquiring that song you want to hear doesn't exist. It's not just willfully ignoring legal alternatives, it's also entitled blackmail: if you don't give it all to us at price X we'll just take it instead. I wonder if brokers buy stock with that attitude, I mean it's only ones and zeroes and doesn't have any far reaching economic repercussions at all, right? Naturally, Techdirt had to use exactly this argument: "Pulling music off Spotify sends the wrong message". Because it's now Thom Yorke's job to keep positive PR spin on the Spotify name and idea of streaming music. He's an unpaid intern in the worlds biggest spin-office.
Pulling music off of Spotify doesn't help artists get paid. It merely drives people back to piracy.
Sure, the industry is changing, absolutely it is. I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't. This doesn't mean that we should just sit back and watch as the biggest gatekeeper for streaming subscription style service makes a permanently shitty deal for new artists. Don't kid yourselves, there will be no incentive for Spotify to change this shitty deal when their business is "established" (as if it isn't right now). People keep saying that the Big Bad Music Biz® record corps were awful in ripping artists off, but will forgive the new King for doing exactly the same thing, except without a R&D department reinvesting in the music scene and nurturing new artists... Why, exactly? Because tech is cool?
And since when was standing in solidarity with those less fortunate than you something that was worthy of disdain?
Note: my personal twitter account is private, so you can not see the replies I have given to my approved followers, unfortunately. I also tweet from the public account @adland for public consumption if you would like to follow that to converse with me.
. 24 people so far have spread the word at the time of this articles publication. A-mah-zing impact, man.
Please RT "@CAZZETTE: @nigelgod Actually they can launch an artist's career and make sure you get paid while doing it - they did for us!"
