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.
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Friday, 31 July 2020 16:44 (three years ago) link
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 a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 17:01 (three years ago) link
it's all amplified, but there will have to be something real there to support the growth story.
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 17:02 (three years ago) link
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.
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 17:05 (three years ago) link
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
― brimstead, Friday, 31 July 2020 17:56 (three years ago) link
was referring to the 'ponzi scheme' sensationalism which could be applied to every ipo ever
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 17:58 (three years ago) link
we always act like these extremely common scenarios are somehow special for spotify.
I didn't say it was unique to Spotify?
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Friday, 31 July 2020 18:14 (three years ago) link
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.
― Alba, Friday, 31 July 2020 18:35 (three years ago) link
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.
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 18:37 (three years ago) link
Almost every web 3.0 venture capital-ed project has been.
― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Friday, 31 July 2020 18:39 (three years ago) link
ok
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 18:39 (three years ago) link
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
― Paul Ponzi, Friday, 31 July 2020 18:47 (three years ago) link
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).
― change display name (Jordan), Friday, 31 July 2020 18:48 (three years ago) link
xp two of those require just a bit more imagination than the other
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Friday, 31 July 2020 18:49 (three years ago) link
― 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).
― sctttnnnt (pgwp), Friday, 31 July 2020 19:21 (three years ago) link
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.
― sctttnnnt (pgwp), Friday, 31 July 2020 19:28 (three years ago) link
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, 31 July 2020 20:09 (three years ago) link
xps I mean Nick Drake wasn’t psychologically fit for the music industry in the late ‘60s either
― trapped out the barndo (crüt), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:12 (three years ago) link
no one is "psychologically fit" for the upper tiers of the music industry imochapelle's routine about how hollywood drives people crazy applies
― Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:23 (three years ago) link
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.
― sctttnnnt (pgwp), Friday, 31 July 2020 20:29 (three years ago) link
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).
― change display name (Jordan), Friday, 31 July 2020 23:08 (three years ago) link
that's a fair point
― sctttnnnt (pgwp), Saturday, 1 August 2020 00:19 (three years ago) link
ok , [deep breath] , FUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUU https://t.co/cogeljJVZM— Conrad Tao (@conradtao) July 31, 2020
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 2 August 2020 16:35 (three years ago) link
🐦[ok , [deep breath] , FUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUU https://t.co/cogeljJVZM🕸— Conrad Tao (@conradtao) July 31, 2020🕸]🐦
― Boring, Maryland, Sunday, 2 August 2020 18:00 (three years ago) link
he's kind of an outlier among classical musicians
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 2 August 2020 18:05 (three years ago) link
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/
― glenn mcdonald, Sunday, 2 August 2020 18:19 (three years ago) link
tao's a good guy
― Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Sunday, 2 August 2020 18:20 (three years ago) link
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.
― glenn mcdonald, Sunday, 2 August 2020 19:31 (three years ago) link
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.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Sunday, 2 August 2020 19:55 (three years ago) link
piece of Gene Simmons's tongue
― XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Sunday, 2 August 2020 19:58 (three years ago) link
like we haven't all had too much of that already
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Sunday, 2 August 2020 19:58 (three years ago) link
four square but for listens, earn clout by being the top fan of a band
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Sunday, 2 August 2020 20:00 (three years ago) link
band sets its MySpace-esque Top 8
― XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Sunday, 2 August 2020 20:00 (three years ago) link
I would totally be pumped about being a top fan for my favorite bands
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Sunday, 2 August 2020 20:02 (three years ago) link
What is "continuous fan engagement" anyway? Is that about releasing music or something else? Talking to them on Instagram?
― Alba, Monday, 3 August 2020 00:46 (three years ago) link
cardigans
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 3 August 2020 02:15 (three years ago) link
― Boring, Maryland, Monday, 3 August 2020 03:08 (three years ago) link
you have to sell cardigans to your fans. and you better start writing a song about cardigans to justify it.
― it's a spicy dinner we're having (Sufjan Grafton), Monday, 3 August 2020 03:32 (three years ago) link
predictably depressing thread
― Paul Ponzi, Monday, 3 August 2020 09:49 (three years ago) link
xp good points glenn
― corrs unplugged, Monday, 3 August 2020 12:12 (three years ago) link
so has anyone heard of it or what
― Daniel_Rf, Monday, 3 August 2020 12:18 (three years ago) link
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.
― change display name (Jordan), Monday, 3 August 2020 15:19 (three years ago) link
Play tax (wealth tax) your Britney Spearses for your Teflon Tel Avivs.
― maf you one two (maffew12), Monday, 3 August 2020 15:27 (three years ago) link
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.
― Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Monday, 3 August 2020 15:29 (three years ago) link
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.
― Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Monday, 3 August 2020 15:33 (three years ago) link
CEO should just admit he doesn't like Tom Scholz and be done with it
― XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Monday, 3 August 2020 15:37 (three years ago) link
Anyone with the disposable income to do otherwise (i.e. actually buy music) who instead now only listens to music via Spotify et al, does not actually care about music, whatever they tell themselves. They don't care about artists, they don't care about sustaining cultures, they don't have a "connection" to music--it's just a lifestyle accoutrements, audio flare in lieu of a personality.
If music ever meant anything to them before, it doesn't, now--and they're happy to let it become another commodity, another industry that has only a wealthy few at the top and a bunch of hobbyists doing their best to create art only when jobbing hasn't run them so tired physically, mentally and emotionally that they can't anymore. Particularly during a global pandemic that has cut off the few avenues for earning money from music that Spotify et al allowed to continued.
If you're on ILM and you "love music" and it's "central to your identity" and you still have a job but music is another subscription on the pile, I hope you'll take a long hard look at whether you really care about music and musicians at all.
― Soundslike, Monday, 3 August 2020 15:46 (three years ago) link
is anybody on ILM actually doing that
― XVI Pedicabo eam (Neanderthal), Monday, 3 August 2020 15:47 (three years ago) link
Spotify essentially has streamlined "album sales" with "radio promotion", but it doesn't pay musicians enough. Apple Music pays artists double what Spotify does. TIDAL pays triple-- and costs the same as Spotify for a monthly subscription.
Daniel Ek can say "Zola Jesus needs to start doing 18-month album cycles" but it's deflection. Spotify need to start paying artists fairly-- they have a near-hegemony on the market. I know it's dopey but I just keep telling people to use TIDAL for streaming, it's a better service in every way and I'd rather see Mr. Carter get rich than this Swedish pancake
― flamboyant goon tie included, Monday, 3 August 2020 15:48 (three years ago) link
I don't think it should be incumbent upon consumers to "care about music" enough to pay more. The model needs to compensate artists fairly. Spotify is exploitative and needs to be forced to change, or it needs to be destroyed.
― flamboyant goon tie included, Monday, 3 August 2020 15:50 (three years ago) link