|
Artists Vs. Spotify (interesting read)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| clay |
| i had this discussion in my own mind many times. i always end up not wanting to release my music. im just sitting on my "gold mine" until someone wants to pay big for it without me having to sell my soul (signing any paper). |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| your gold mine isn't a gold mine until you have youtube views and i'm sadly not even joking. The biggest most reliable measure for success is pretty much youtube. It is the new AR |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| Pretty good read, thanks Rann. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
This is basically a reply to the analysis on musically.com as well as the whole Thom Yorke debacle.
First let me start off with saying I like Spotify. I think what they're doing is great. It is just the way the do/have done certain things that make me question if their business is sustainable.
Now, I don't know who Thom Yorke is or what his music sounds like. I don't know his target demographic either. But first off it seems like Mister Yorke just doesn't know what he's doing. He's complaining about Spotify not paying up when they pay tons more than Youtube does per play. So why is he still on Youtube? Taking music off of Youtube, now that would be a statement! Youtube boasts over 800 million visitors per month and Spotify only has 24 Million users. I don't know how many people of those 800 million consume music on Youtube but I bet its a lot. By plain numbers Youtube is already more than 30 times bigger than Spotify. That's hard to compete with, even if you have a better offering. Hell why not ban radio airplay too, that probably makes about as much as Youtube does! ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...hom-yorke-says/ )
Mister Yorke doesn't understand the nature of music consumption at all. Music consumption is ambiguous. It is everywhere and non-stop, on any platform or device at any given time. People don't like to change to another platform when they're comfortable being where they are. They rather have the artist come to them. Thus, every place you are not represented as an artist is a direct loss of potential, income, exposure and possible opportunities that might arise from that. Basically, he's just hurting his own business which he is trying to protect. ( http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/report...d-of-music.html )
Labels are an unnecessary evil in this day and age. Fans want to be engaged and involved. They want be part of and take part in the experience. Crowdsourscing is hotter than ever and new artists pop up on the mainstage faster than before. They do so without a record label, just surrounded by a small group of intelligible, capable people. If you have a great story to tell and engage your audience, you're gold. You just need a solid distributor. Your earnings will at least double up by skipping the record label.
Spotify is partially owned by that unnecessary evil: major record labels. It is not in the label's interest to fill the artist's pocket, just their own. These labels are slow creatures, mega-concerns that resist every change in the music ecosystem to sustain their current businessmodel. This is why Spotify will only (very very) slowly start to improve their platform to generate business for the artists. Small labels are underrepresented in Spotify anyway, they don't have any power regarding the decisionmaking, their not share-holders after all.
I personally believe streaming is the only way to go right now. I don't think Spotify is the answer though. Their business model is shady in the sense that they are partially owned by the majors. The majors get paid more for each stream their music sells than any independent. 70% of the gross income Spotify collects will be paid out to rightsholders (usually the labels), which leaves 30% to invest into the platform. As soon as profit will be made, shareholders will also be entitled to part of that - that's what being shareholder is about. If Spotify will ever become profitable (which I personally doubt) labels will take an extra cut which won't end up at artists/producers since it's not in the royalty revenue stream. Also, any tech-startup company that aims to take over the world by storm you need as close to 100% of your revenue to re-invest into the company. The irony in this whole thing is that record labels (refusing to invest in the future and rather collecting now) are holding back the true potential of what Spotify can be.
edit: Oh! Thom Yorke just launched his own streaming service. What a coincidence :haha: . It all makes sense now. Brilliant plot for some needed attention. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
your gold mine isn't a gold mine until you have youtube views and i'm sadly not even joking. The biggest most reliable measure for success is pretty much youtube. It is the new AR |
It's not surprising really, if you consider Youtube as just another form of TV.
One that people choose to go and watch though. It's the targeted advertising that makes it lucrative. |
|
|
| meriter |
| lol... Thom Yorke is the frontman for radiohead |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
lol... Thom Yorke is the frontman for radiohead |
 |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
lol... Thom Yorke is the frontman for radiohead |
Honestly I didn't really care to look up who it is. Since it is news I figured he was somewhat relevant. What triggered me that what he was saying just wasn't making any sense. The edit beneath my post makes sense of it all though. Found that just after writing the entire post (mehhh). |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| One of the first bands to embrace the internet. They pioneered the pay what you want model. So I think his opinion is relevant and he is not afraid of change. |
|
|
| clay |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
your gold mine isn't a gold mine until you have youtube views and i'm sadly not even joking. The biggest most reliable measure for success is pretty much youtube. It is the new AR |
i dont see why this is so sad. it means that anyone can have success and it also means these big greedy companies get less. artists wont get much either but they will from performing live (which is where most of the money should be anyway).
i have mixed feelings about spotify and similar. its better than CD and maybe slightly better than buying mp3 (not sure though), but for me its working mostly as a high quality preview program for what to buy. But i never buy anything because I dont like any of the platforms available.
Its like renting a track. A year later you probably dont have it anymore which means its kinda like radio, you only listen to whats latest or most popular over time. the true underground stuff wont stay and thats so sad.
When i look through my vinyls I often find these old forgotten classics and just wow that one is awesome. Same thing with CDs and even sometimes also pirated mp3. I never get that with spotify though and the whole sentimental value of music is gone with streaming and buying mp3 imo.
i need a music-product i can store away for years then open up again and remember everything from that period of time. with pirated mp3 i filled up external HDs and put them away when full, starting on a new one. Ill never ever buy that much mp3 though so this experience is completely lost for me.
timeless music needs to be on timeless platforms. streaming is not. mp3 is not . CD is not. Vinyl maybe... |
|
|
|
|
