Spotify - anyone heard of it?

it is the sort of thing thom yorke would say in 2007, and the other stuff in those reaction tweets doesn't necessarily follow.

it is definitely an attack on the album experience, but one could maintain quality and similar quantity. it's mostly a marketing suggestion, and that's what makes it a shit thing to say. "if you aren't making money. it must be that you're doing it wrong. it's not that the streaming model pays fewer artists a living wage than the pre-internet model."

there are artists who've made it today that wouldn't have pre-internet. they probably did so with some modern internet marketing hustle, but it certainly doesn't seem like there's been a 1-to-1 replacement of music money losers with new winners with marketing styles fitter for the "future landscape." it seems like the "future landscape" probably sustains fewer artists.

the reaction to this has been way OTT imo

If it came for anyone but the creepy looking CEO it could be a useful discussion of how things work now.

Isn't Spotify still completely unprofitable? Dude's trying to shore up a Ponzi scheme that pays the bare minimum to artists by trying to compete on podcasts and video and could collapse if investors ever actually desire getting money back.

otm about creepy looking CEO. but many growth stories are unprofitable in the beginning. some of them go on to be hugely profitable. if investors want to cash out, others will invest if they believe user number and revenue growth support the story. we always act like these extremely common scenarios are somehow special for spotify.

it's all amplified, but there will have to be something real there to support the growth story.

should probably replace "go on to be hugely profitable" with "grow revenues and userbase, causing the stock price to go up and generating more wealth for shareholders." it is a bad situation, but it is the same bad situation everywhere.

idk I think there’s a meaningful difference between an artist reacting to a new market environment and a businessman prescribing the direction they should go

was referring to the 'ponzi scheme' sensationalism which could be applied to every ipo ever

we always act like these extremely common scenarios are somehow special for spotify.

I didn't say it was unique to Spotify?

idk I think there’s a meaningful difference between an artist reacting to a new market environment and a businessman prescribing the direction they should go

Yeah, this is it, I think. I suppose music industry bosses have collectively exercised just as much control over musicians' careers in the past but there hasn't been this single figure (who none of them technically work for) saying it all out loud.

I do think Geoff Barrow has possibly misread Ek's emphasis: I don't think he was necessarily saying the frequency of the releases was the issue so much as the 'engagement with fans'. Which is indeed vomit-inducing.

xp right, fair enough. it just seems like you'd recognize it as 'not a Ponzi scheme' then. because it is definitely not a Ponzi scheme unless almost everything is somehow.

Almost every web 3.0 venture capital-ed project has been.

ok

Trying to imagine some of my favorite artists - Kate Bush, Miles Davis, Nick Drake - "engaging with fans" in order to hope to make a living

music industry bosses have collectively exercised just as much control over musicians' careers in the past

Not to put on rose-tinted glasses, but at least in the label system there was maybe more of a recognition that you could make money from different niches. Now that it's focused on the platform, you're either an artist with a substantial fanbase apart from streaming, or you're at the mercy of Spotify deciding your music fits a certain mood-based algorithm (which obviously favors certain types of music, often suited for background listening).

xp two of those require just a bit more imagination than the other

Not to put on rose-tinted glasses, but at least in the label system there was maybe more of a recognition that you could make money from different niches. Now that it's focused on the platform, you're either an artist with a substantial fanbase apart from streaming, or you're at the mercy of Spotify deciding your music fits a certain mood-based algorithm (which obviously favors certain types of music, often suited for background listening).

― change display name (Jordan), Friday, July 31, 2020 bookmarkflaglink

I think you should take off your rose-tinted glasses and revisit the era of big-box retailers getting into music sales back in the 90s*. That was absolutely a precursor to all of this - when the major labels became more or less beholden to these massive corporate entities that were not actually in the music business but could shift massive amounts of the small number of artists who filled their one or two aisles or end caps. This was a major first step in deprioritizing actual record stores and thus a whole population of artists who relied on those stores to survive. And in the era of Napster, it was the influence of retailers like Wal-Mart and Best Buy that steered major labels away from negotiating partnership with Napster, which itself led to the huge boom in online piracy in the 00s. Another hit against artists. By the time Spotify came along the labels were so weak they had no leverage and no alternatives. And indie labels/artists are caught up in all of this whether they like it or not.

*not to mention record labels have a long history of screwing over artists with regard to royalties and contracts, regardless of whether there is a third party co-conspirator (radio, Wal-Mart, Ticketmaster, Spotify).

I'm not a defender of Spotify's royalty practices, and I have a lot of sympathy for artists who are struggling because they are stuck inside of a machine that actively makes it challenging for them to earn a living from the very art that powers the machine.

But there has always been a corporate gatekeeper *in league with* the record labels. Radio payola, big box stores, Ticketmaster, Starbucks, Clear Channel, and now Apple, Spotify, and Google. And there have always been artists on the losing end of that - in fact the majority of artists are on the losing end. Every article written about how terrible Spotify is always seems to neglect that they are only one signature on the contracts they sign with massive media conglomerates who have *never* cared about supporting the artists they represent.

Good points, although I'm thinking about this from an indie artist perspective, not major labels really.

Absolutely right that the game has always been rigged, and it's not like we're going to go back to a previous version anyway, but I find the current flavor to be particularly depressing.

xps I mean Nick Drake wasn’t psychologically fit for the music industry in the late ‘60s either

no one is "psychologically fit" for the upper tiers of the music industry imo
chapelle's routine about how hollywood drives people crazy applies

Good points, although I'm thinking about this from an indie artist perspective, not major labels really.

Absolutely right that the game has always been rigged, and it's not like we're going to go back to a previous version anyway, but I find the current flavor to be particularly depressing.

― change display name (Jordan), Friday, July 31, 2020 bookmarkflaglink

I don't think it's possible to imagine a system in which indie artists are uniquely supported, because all the leverage of any deal with artists or indie labels is dictated by how negotiations with the major labels are worked out. Again, see Ticketmaster, Clear Channel, et al. Never in the history of the music business has a multi-million-dollar business made it a point to look out for the little guy. The only true instances of that are when similar but separate independent-minded infrastructure is created--pirate radio, indie record stores. Bandcamp.

Which is why people are especially frustrated by their rhetoric, I think (since it's posed as empowering, anyone can do it if they just adapt to their system & aesthetics).

that's a fair point

ok , [deep breath] , FUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUU https://t.co/cogeljJVZM

— Conrad Tao (@conradtao) July 31, 2020

🐦[ok , [deep breath] , FUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUU https://t.co/cogeljJVZM🕸
— Conrad Tao (@conradtao) July 31, 2020🕸]🐦

he's kind of an outlier among classical musicians

There are occasional downsides to working at a company whose CEO gives unscripted interviews.

Although if you're going to get pissed at individual quotes, it's worth at least reading the whole thing.

https://musically.com/2020/07/30/spotify-ceo-talks-covid-19-artist-incomes-and-podcasting-interview/

tao's a good guy

Personally, I think there's a deep economic truth behind the unfortunate quantity-over-quality-implying comment about release frequency, which is that the shift from CD purchasing to streaming subscriptions is among many other things a populist shift in purchasing power. People (like me) who spent $1000s on CDs every year used to direct $1000s of music spending each, and most people directed more like $10s of spending. If you bought the first Telefon Tel Aviv album, I'm betting it was in a stack of CDs you carried to the register that week, like you did many weeks. Whereas if you were buying 2 CDs a year, the chances are really good that neither of them was Telefon Tel Aviv. Some artists and some whole scenes were thus basically supported by the highest spenders in a kind of patronage system. Those fans almost certainly didn't listen 100x as much, so the effective rate of $ earned per listen in 2000 was probably a ton higher for Telefon Tel Aviv than, say, Britney Spears.

With streaming subscriptions, the people who used to direct $1000s of spending now direct $120. Some of the people who used to direct $10s now direct $120, too, and the ones who use ad-supported Spotify still direct $10s. The gap is an order of magnitude smaller, and it's thus a lot hard to get by with a smaller number of higher-spending fans. Telefon Tel Aviv now gets the same amount per listen as Britney. (Actually, a tiny bit more, due to the way streaming royalties are pooled, but nothing like before.) Calling this unfair assumes that the previous disparity of spending was itself "fair", which seems like a moral stretch, or at least an oversimplification.

I don't direct Spotify business policies, but I do work on its algorithms and features, and I take Ek's comment as a correct statement of current fact. Streaming, in 2020, is probably generally better for the kinds of artists who are more inclined towards continuous fan engagement. If you're BTS, streaming is working fine for you. If you're Zola Jesus, you need more help than you're currently getting. But literally nobody thinks we're done. It's part of my job to try to figure out what that help could be, and in general what the future could be. Maybe it's as simple as adding higher-price tiers so people who are willing to spend more can.

higher price tiers that function like Patreon for your favorite acts, like you get some kind of perk if you are a top listener of a band, ticket discounts or band swag, etc.

piece of Gene Simmons's tongue

like we haven't all had too much of that already

four square but for listens, earn clout by being the top fan of a band

band sets its MySpace-esque Top 8

I would totally be pumped about being a top fan for my favorite bands

What is "continuous fan engagement" anyway? Is that about releasing music or something else? Talking to them on Instagram?

cardigans

cardigans

you have to sell cardigans to your fans. and you better start writing a song about cardigans to justify it.

predictably depressing thread

xp good points glenn

so has anyone heard of it or what

It's part of my job to try to figure out what that help could be, and in general what the future could be. Maybe it's as simple as adding higher-price tiers so people who are willing to spend more can.

I don't think the people who were buying stacks of cds were doing so because they particularly cared about how the artists were making a living, or liked spending money on music. They were just obsessed with music and wanted to hear it, and could afford to make it happen.

Patreon-like tiers for b-sides and merch drops would be gross, but sure, there's probably a small subset of music fans who would pay more if they knew that their streaming would directly give their favorite artists a lot more revenue per stream. It's hard to imagine streaming platforms highlighting the fact that their regular tier subscription doesn't do much for most artists though.

Play tax (wealth tax) your Britney Spearses for your Teflon Tel Avivs.

With streaming subscriptions, the people who used to direct $1000s of spending now direct $120. Some of the people who used to direct $10s now direct $120, too, and the ones who use ad-supported Spotify still direct $10s.

Not that it absolves Spotify of anything, but there were obviously two sides in these negotiations. Record labels, who supposedly represent their artists, didn't seem to be up to the task of fighting on their behalf for better terms.

CEO should just admit he doesn't like Tom Scholz and be done with it