Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the world-not-missing-much dept.

Music 301

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."'"

cancel ×

301 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Everything in its right place (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44307249)

So, it has come to this.

Re:Everything in its right place (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#44307295)

Fight the man, man.

Re:Everything in its right place (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44307331)

According to every other news outlet it came to this two days ago and was reported back then as well, but better late than never I guess.

Re:Everything in its right place (5, Funny)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44307351)

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

Re:Everything in its right place (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307553)

It's definitely stringent when you factor in their pea-sized brains.

Reward the artist (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#44307253)

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 is what you get when you mess with us (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44307283)

Atoms for Peace self publish - I recommend AMOK.

Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (5, Interesting)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about a year ago | (#44307757)

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.

Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (1)

cinky (2632165) | about a year ago | (#44307779)

Yup, I bough "In Rainbows" for $20 just to show support for such actions.

Re:This is what you get when you mess with us (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44307813)

I can't remember how much I paid for "In Rainbows", but it was definitely more than the usual album price (for much the same reasons you paid over the odds).

Re:Reward the artist (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307401)

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.

Re:Reward the artist (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307433)

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

Re:Reward the artist (5, Interesting)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year ago | (#44307545)

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.

Re:Reward the artist (0)

cinky (2632165) | about a year ago | (#44307845)

Sure, but when you spend it on spotify or itunes or such you're not actually paying the musicians. 90% (number out of my ass ofcourse) of that money goes to the production company and the service that provides the download. As a musician, you're the one who's making 90% of the work.

Just to clarify by "musicians" I mean real musicians not the industry-produced starlets. With them, well, someone has to pay the 5 people that wrote that shitty songs of theirs (well, they're not even their, they just sing them)...

Re:Lame Copout (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307551)

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

Re:Reward the artist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307579)

This is mostly myth. Touring does not make artists tons of money.

http://money.futureofmusic.org/mythbusting/3/ [futureofmusic.org]

Re:Reward the artist (4, Insightful)

darkitecture (627408) | about a year ago | (#44307589)

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.

Re:Reward the artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307689)

Go on and have a guess how many gigs either of them have put on in Japan in the past 12 months.

OK.

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

What, again? What was wrong with my first guess?

Re:Reward the artist (1, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#44307625)

I know many artists and they do pretty well without many rewards. I am not saying that an artist should not make a living, but just like anything else it is a choice. One works to maximize money, like this guy or they guy who set up mortgages the guarantees families lose their life saving, or one works to try to make the world a better place, hoping to make some money along the way. And i do not mean high faluting things. If your music makes a few people feel better, able to deal with life,then that is the reward. Sometimes you end up with a product that is highly profitable, and sometimes that product is not art.

The reality is that the free market has set a value for recorded music. It may not be enough to support all the inefficiencies it once did, but the value is set. I heard a radio interview with this guy where he somehow felt entitled to a certain amount of money. That is not how it works. In my lifetime I have found my skills to be worth different values at different time, and if I were still doing the same thing I was doing 30 years ago I would be broke.

Everything has really changed over the past 20 years or so. I recall one duo, 25 years ago, who did shows for free and sold t-shirts to fund an album. The album then paid expenses. Now they perform and don't realy put out albums. They sell t-shirts. I was at a show a while back and was told just go to iTunes.

I wish more big recording people would get off Spotify. This might encourage spotify to do more local stuff, where local performers could get some exposure. People would then go out and see the shows, and we have a better music scene like when I was young, where you just went out to hear some cool music, not to be part of a crowd.

Re:Reward the artist (2)

Endo13 (1000782) | about a year ago | (#44307893)

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.

Re:Reward the artist (2)

datavirtue (1104259) | about a year ago | (#44307661)

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

Re:Reward the artist (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44307811)

"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.

Re:Reward the artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307867)

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

Why? Artists sign those bad deals because they want to get famous and the publishers have a marketing monopoly. They have already made the decision that fame is worth more than money. Why should I have any obligation to support them further than noticing their existence just because they decided that they want both?

The better option: Boycott any artist that signs with a major publisher. There are plenty of good independent artists, support them.

Re:Reward the artist (4, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about a year ago | (#44307897)

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.

Pay the artists? (4, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#44307287)

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!

Re:Pay the artists? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44307327)

Funnily enough, Radiohead/Thom Yorke/Atoms for Peace are artists that I will actually pay for their music as I'm a big fan and they typically self-publish these days. Radiohead were one of the first artists to do a "pay what you want" price for their album.

Re:Pay the artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307583)

What if I want to pay $0 for it?

Re:Pay the artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307725)

You can do that! Most will let you.

Re:Pay the artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307755)

That just feels wrong. Extra wrong. I'd rather go get a torrent of it behind their back than go to their website and spit directly in their face.

Re:Pay the artists? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year ago | (#44307891)

I can't remember if they had a minimum of 1 penny or not, but if you want it for free, just grab it from PirateBay. I'm sure Thom Yorke has enough money and would rather you enjoyed listening to it for free than forgo listening to it because you couldn't afford it.

Re:Pay the artists? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307345)

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!

Re:Pay the artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307827)

You content Mafia criminals have a fucked-up concept of "ownership".
You take the work of an artist. You pay him peanuts for his service.You make a copy, costing you exactly nothing. But you act like it's a physical tangible good where every copy requires to do actual work worth actual money. And finally because the thing still is infinitely abundant, you strengthen this delusion, to create artificial scarcity in the market, to be able to demand an actual price. Admitting with your "license" that you are fully aware of this. Since for an actual physical good, it would not be needed.
Then for doing absolutely no actual work, you demand real actual money that we had to do real actual hard work to earn.

And when we laugh in your insane cocaine-whitened* faces, and tell you to GTFO and take your FAIL with you, you have the audacity to call US "criminals"?!

Get the fuck outta here! [youtube.com]

[* I am a direct witness of the cocaine (and prostitute) abuse in the music (management/distribution) industry.]

Startups are the new business model (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | about a year ago | (#44307905)

Note to musicians. Here is a possible business model.

1. Set up a retarded hipster startup - something like http://www.hellolamppost.co.uk/ [hellolamppost.co.uk]
2. Get dumb people to fund you (if you're struggling, maybe you need to dumb down your concept a notch or two)
3. Pay yourself that money and do what you really want instead
4. Wait for the world to lose interest in your startup, fold, and GOTO 1

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307289)

So now instead of getting "low" royalties you got NO royalties. Seems legit.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307323)

You seem to be having difficulties understanding the concept of protest.

Re:Why? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44307609)

You seem to be having difficulties understanding the concept of protest.

it's not royalties artists put their stuff on streaming services.. it's for pr. this guy didn't get enough plays on spotify so he dropped it to get some pr. you have to remember just who this guy is. the problem for him is that nobody gives a shit about his solo music, I hadn't even heard that he had a solo album. and the guts to say that he is doing this for new artists, hah.

if you spread the royalties and plays to 10 000 artists.. of course it's not that much that any single artist is going to get. the "problem" here being that there are 10 000(and more, way more) recording artists.

Re:Why? (1)

cinky (2632165) | about a year ago | (#44307877)

Nobody gives a shit about his solo music? what rock have you been living under? also his solo album (the eraser) was released 7 years ago and "The album debuted at #3 on the UK Albums Chart and at #2 on the Billboard 200 in the United State" (wikipedia). But yeah no-one gives a shit about his solo music, or radiohead, or atoms for peace...

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307371)

they are protesting smaller bands getting small royalties. Thom Yorke is probably financially set for life.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307417)

When Lars Ulrich and Dr. Dre were making noise about napster back in 99/2000 or so, that was "for the little guy!" too, right?

I don't buy if for a second. being rich already doesn't mean you don't want more.

Re:Why? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#44307851)

People who have spent a long time in an institution naturally want to protect the status quo. These big, famous musicians might not honestly care about money, but they certainly have had their egos stroked and owe their entire livelihoods to the way the music business works (or worked in the 90s). It is impossible to separate them from what they grew up in, even if they profess to hate it. (See also, the US Senate or the British Monarchy.)

Enough already (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307299)

While we can argue about piracy or online delivery systems, doesn't anyone think that singing karaoke for a living shouldn't make you instantly rich. For god sake maybe they are earning what they deserve.

He ought to know (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307301)

Radiohead was one of the first to use online distribution.

Nice graph (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307309)

Especially now that Spotify has become more popular, it is indeed time for them to start paying up.

http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/how-much-do-artists-earn-online/

Re:Nice graph (5, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#44307329)

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.

Re:Nice graph (2)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44307369)

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.

Re:Nice graph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307461)

Spotify pays very little money per execution, it adds up for big established artists but not for new and more obscure ones.

Re:Nice graph (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307711)

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.

Re:Nice graph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307831)

And why should you? What should the value of a single play be compared to a purchase and infinite plays? Is $.99 worth only 1 play? Obviously not. Is it worth 100 plays? 500 plays?

Re:Nice graph (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307875)

That's exactly my point. iTunes rates are deplorable but a musician could count on making a few cents per person who liked their record enough to listen at home; now that listener has to be enthusiastic enough to listen to that track eight times a day for two months for the artist to make the same pittance. Revenues will go down for almost all artists, and the ones that aren't superstars - who don't have superfans listening to their single five hundred times - will get absolutely obliterated.

Re:Nice graph (1)

StatusWoe (972534) | about a year ago | (#44307861)

Comparing an internet stream to a purchase seems unfair.

I'd be interested in seeing how an internet stream compares to a radio broadcast. Given that a radio broadcast hits a huge but mostly uncountable (or difficult to accurately count) audience I would expect a single stream to be a small fraction of even the cost of playing a single song on the radio.

Re:Nice graph (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307411)

Spotify is popular because labels deliberately drowned all the competitors by refusing to license their catalog. Reap what you sow.

Re:Nice graph (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307505)

Which competitors? When it stepped onto the market the only equivalent I could see in the UK was Last.fm's premium service.

Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (4, Informative)

blarkon (1712194) | about a year ago | (#44307317)

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ [informatio...utiful.net]

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).

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (5, Informative)

BenJury (977929) | about a year ago | (#44307379)

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.

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#44307601)

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.

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44307635)

don't need a label though..

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307637)

And how much of that 85% is eaten up by distribution costs?

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (1)

BenJury (977929) | about a year ago | (#44307685)

None, Spotify would be paying for the bandwidth and infrastructure. Obviously other mediums that would be the case, also there is of course the physical artwork and the like. But via Spotify? You'd expect it to be a little more equal.

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (2)

MerceanCoconut (1145401) | about a year ago | (#44307651)

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!

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44307523)

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.

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307655)

Welcome to the world of most ad funded ios/android apps and most apps take a hell of a lot more work to produce than a single song.
Nothing to see here...

Re:Great graphic from Information is Beautiful (1)

darkstar949 (697933) | about a year ago | (#44307903)

How's that compare to terrestrial radio though? My understanding is that the artists are paid a royalty based upon the number of plays on the radio, but a large station might broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people. If you were to break down to the cost per person listening on the radio to a streaming site the the royalty might actually end up being more in that case.

Massive sense of entitlement & missing perspec (5, Interesting)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about a year ago | (#44307321)

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.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year ago | (#44307363)

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.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307571)

Well, the point is that you'd continue working, not rely on a small amount of work to feed you for a year.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307763)

Most professional musicians do work all year round. Most of them aren't superstars, and losing all of their album income to streaming would be enough to force them into a desk job.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307367)

If Spotify was purely supplementary income that'd be accurate, but many people have stopped buying music in favour of buying streaming subscriptions, or simply putting up with adverts; if Spotify is replacing your album and singles income, then depending on how much your label is shafting you it could be quite a pay cut.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about a year ago | (#44307515)

This is different from people buying FM radios how?

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307573)

Playing an album on the Spotify app, and playing an album off my MP3 library, are essentially identical from a user experience (moreso if I have Spotify Premium and have the album cached locally). Leaving the radio on all day and hoping the tracks I want to hear will be played is very different.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about a year ago | (#44307697)

Well quite honestly nowadays you can leave the radio on and be fairly certain that the song you want to be played will come on within the next 30-40 minutes... as long as what you want to hear is one of the current top 15 songs or so for the genre of the station in question.

It was bad enough when I was young, but now it's to the point where the same song will be played multiple times per hour, like the stations just have a "greatest hits of summer 2013" cd on repeat.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307731)

Interesting point. Radio ate into boy band sales more than it ate into indie or obscure records, levelling the playing field. Spotify cuts into both equally.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307603)

(And to complete the thought, listening to an FM radio is so different that listening to the album that I will buy the album regardless. I might not, however, buy a CD if I can get it on demand from Spotify for free.)

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307591)

Whereas a few years ago before pseudo legal organisations started to collect payments for radio plays, he'd have got zero pennies, but a massive free advert. In fact, bands like his would have greased the palms of those that select what is going to be played.

Singles income has been zero or even negative for bands for a very long time, they're treated as loss-leaders for the album and concert tour.

What the streaming servers contract should be heading for is something along the lines after X plays, you can't access that track (or album) again. You've auditioned it enough to know whether you want to buy it or not. But I doubt that'll happen, we're clearly heading towards no ownership and pay-per-play models.

In Thom's case, he's been stale for years. That's why people aren't buying his stuff. It's been down hill since OK Computer. They think they can turn out shit because of their name under the "experimental" genre, but the reality is they're just taking the piss.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307621)

Spotify limited you to 10 plays per track for a while back there. They rescinded that because it was unpopular with users.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307713)

They've been shit since well before that. Most overrated band ever, by far.

The worst part of it is that they clearly have talent too. They have skill, vision, and creativity... and they use it to make horrible music.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (3, Interesting)

seven of five (578993) | about a year ago | (#44307527)

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.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#44307611)

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.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307795)

"Work I did last year" doesn't really seem a fair way of looking at it.

Caveat Emptor: I'm full time employed.

But I also write songs in my free time and like to play to people.

I'm not the worlds greatest artist but I can fill a room and people like my stuff.

It takes me ages to write a song to my own satisfaction. Out of 18 years of playing Guitar I've probably got 8 or so tracks that I would be willing to consider selling the rights for.

Bear in mind that's 18 years worth of work that I could be getting $5000 a year on...

Ok, huge over simplification, I've no interest in making money from my work and I've never had a finanical pressure to get my work done. but...

TL:DR just because something takes 3-5mins to perform, doesn't mean it took 3-5 mins to create.

Re:Massive sense of entitlement & missing pers (1)

dataminator (1447053) | about a year ago | (#44307863)

First, it says "less than $5,000" which I would expect to be "*much* less than $5,000" for the vast majority.

But most importantly, you claim that this is what artists get for "work they did last year" which I also don't expect to be true in the majority of cases. This income is most likely usually from continuously producing new music, not "residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life".

I wasn't able to find more detailed numbers, but I would expect income to be more driven by recent releases than "some song I wrote 10 years ago". Which means that of the small proportion of artists who even get any money at all, 90% get very little, including those that work very hard to produce new interesting music. Of course, without more detail (how many artists, how many new releases, the actual income distribution, etc.) it's impossible to really interpret that statement in any meaningful way, but I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of "getting $5,000 whilst you do nothing" is not the most appropriate.

Not sure which side I'm on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307335)

The side of the fatcat companies ripping artists off on royalties...

Or the side of artists that have been fed hook line and sinker on the idea of ongoing royalties for their songs being played and listened to.

The usual argument applies: If I build a car and sell it, I don't get paid a royalty every time someone gets in the car and drives it - I either earn a wage for building it, or I earn profit from selling it, and I get no more money for the car after that. Why should artists recordings be any different?

Re:Not sure which side I'm on (1)

Lazere (2809091) | about a year ago | (#44307397)

How about somewhere in between? Negotiate year one royalties and then every its played after that sees diminishing royalties until it's finally zero? That way, it keeps companies like Spotify honest, and keeps artists from being able to ride the gravy train on something they did 20+ years ago.

Re:Not sure which side I'm on (1)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | about a year ago | (#44307719)

If you build a car then it's not the case that anyone else can perfectly replicate that car and distribute it globally at effectively zero cost. Therefore your analogy is invalid.

Old news (1)

dirtypoole (2609871) | about a year ago | (#44307341)

wasn't this poster here roughly three days ago? get with it /. !

Just Listen on Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307383)

Spotify!?

Just listen to the music for free on Youtube!

Re:Just Listen on Youtube (4, Interesting)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about a year ago | (#44307565)

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.

Good move, Thom. (1, Flamebait)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44307415)

If you are motivated more by money than by whether people are enjoying or appreciating what you've created, I don't want to listen to your music. Thank you for making it easier not to help money get into your pocket.

Misinformed, a shame (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307429)

The problem is that this kind of action does not help anyone.
My take on it is that although the pulling of music may be a good gesture my belief this person is misinformed about the situation.

So the 'per play' costs are low, they are 1000x higher than the per play for radio.

A simple example ( I made up the costs )

- Radio plays song to 100,000 people - $1 royalties
- Streaming service plays song to 1 person - 10cents royalties

The issue is that streaming services are not reaching (yet) the massive audiences like radio has done in the past but they will. If they get killed now using the cost model that is being applied then we are all knackered.

Re:Misinformed, a shame (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#44307485)

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

Re:Misinformed, a shame (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44307705)

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).

The Music Industry must Die! (4, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | about a year ago | (#44307483)

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.

Re:The Music Industry must Die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307911)

Lighten up Francis. You need your head checked. If the artist signed a contract, that's their problem. If they want to produce and distribute the music themselves, they certainly can.

Open source music store (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44307489)

Is there not an online place where artists can just produce and sell music without the MAFIAA being involved? If so, why are not more musicians using it?

Re:Open source music store (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about a year ago | (#44307529)

Do you need a record label to make your music available on Spotify?

Re:Open source music store (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44307769)

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

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.

be your own label (1)

fredan (54788) | about a year ago | (#44307517)

and get all of it.

Spotify's retort (4, Insightful)

fatgraham (307614) | about a year ago | (#44307561)

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

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...

Switch to Pay What You Want (2)

advid.net (595837) | about a year ago | (#44307607)

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.

Re:Switch to Pay What You Want (2)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#44307853)

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 [time.com] , and How much he's likely to make [slashdot.org]

Delivery System (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44307749)

Greedy musician is greedy. I take it Thom is going to devise his own delivery system, or maybe he gets enough from iTunes?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>