Will Artists Start Boycotting Spotify?
SodaHead Music
2011/10/31 13:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
140 votes
|
|
47% | |||
|
159 votes
|
|
53% | |||
Programs like Spotify and Pandora, which offer users access to new music for free, have been making immense progress in terms of getting the rights to do what they're doing. But not everyone is happy about it. If Coldplay had allowed its new album, "Mylo Xyloto," to be streamed on Spotify users would have been able to hear any song on the album for free.
So Coldplay made a simple decision: not to put their music on Spotify.
It's not just a money thing, either. Coldplay is upset, but not because they're missing out on profit. (At least that's not what they're saying.) According to the New York Post, they're upset because they want listeners to hear the album "in its entirety" instead of listening to the most popular tracks. Still, the monetary element is dominating discussion.
According to Billboard, Coldplay's resistence could be a huge strike against programs like Spotify. Artists do still profit from free Spotify plays, but sometimes the payoff on a Spotify play can be just a few cents, compared to about $0.90 for an iTunes purchase. Spotify supporters argue that royalties from free streaming services will keep building, while one-time purchases will be just that: one-time purchases.
So Coldplay made a simple decision: not to put their music on Spotify.
It's not just a money thing, either. Coldplay is upset, but not because they're missing out on profit. (At least that's not what they're saying.) According to the New York Post, they're upset because they want listeners to hear the album "in its entirety" instead of listening to the most popular tracks. Still, the monetary element is dominating discussion.
According to Billboard, Coldplay's resistence could be a huge strike against programs like Spotify. Artists do still profit from free Spotify plays, but sometimes the payoff on a Spotify play can be just a few cents, compared to about $0.90 for an iTunes purchase. Spotify supporters argue that royalties from free streaming services will keep building, while one-time purchases will be just that: one-time purchases.
Money is the main thing to worry about and my concern is like this: if I can, I donate directly to artists, because they're the ones I want to support. No one wants their favourite artist (whether or not they're musicians) to work for a living. Given that the internet has made all other forms of distribution obsolete, the only worthwhile thing record labels do these days is advertise. It seems to me that the main people who profit from my $12 a month will be Spotify's creators, since whatever they pass on to record labels (which probably isn't much, something like 10% of profits) is going to be divided among all the record labels first, then the artists second and who knows what said record label has done with their army of lawyers to scam the artists out of their money.
Of course, same deal with a cd... which is why I'd rather donate direct or buy a concert ticket.
Plus keep in mind that the recording industry takes artists and bends them over a table with no lube, and you'll see how much resentment can exist.
Most mainstream, popular artists who are considered "successful" make less than a manager at McDonalds and they have no pension or health care being stocked up for when they retire. That $19 that they made on an album has to be split up between the artist's record label, their producer, manager, whoever wrote the songs(if they didn't themselves)-basically anyone who has their name tied to that artist. So after all of that money is divided up, the artist is usually only making about $1 per album sold.
As for touring, the venue takes a portion of the ticket sales, as well as any ticket sales company such as ticketmaster. The money is then further split up between the multiple bands playing, the record label, tour manager, road crew, etc. The money that is left for the artist usually goes for gas, food, and lodging. So once again, the artist is not making a whole lot. In fact, most artists will walk away from a tour having lost money or barely breaking even. Touring is a very expensive venture.
When they're not touring or recording, most artists are forced to work a second job at home.
I would encourage you to educate yourself on the industry before forming an opinion of it, lest you look ignorant.
The industry is far more complex than most people realize, and all aspects of it are interconnected, they all need each other to survive. If the industry desires to survive, they have to learn to work together. Record companies can't survive without artists, and artists can't survive without business minded people supporting them.
But the idea that the internet has undermined artists who want to produce cohesive albums...yeah, it's great when someone tries it and succeeds in making an album that actually ties everything together. But the chronic failure of even earnestly well-intentioned artists over decades of album-centric music marketing to make more than 2 good tracks in ten pretty conclusively proves that most artists just can't do it.
If music HAS to have a business model that promotes singles over albums or vice versa, and never both, I'll go with the singles model.
Much ado about nothing!