My daughter was ruddy livid at the weekend when her songs were removed!

Seems and odd decision from a big artist – surely all the major record labels are behind streaming as a future format or they wouldn’t allow their content on there.

And apparently all her video are still on YouTube which supposedly offers even worse terms than Spotify.

I (any many other people I know), only use Spotify for music now so I won’t be buying her CD for my daughter.

Not sure where this leaves Spotify and other streaming services – I can understand delaying release of new albums on Spotify to maximise new album sales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/29885973

This won’t be the last time this happens with a ‘major artist’ this pay-for streaming thing is still a really new product so the goal posts will move about – but the truth is Spotify has recently got it’s 10 millionth pay subscriber but it still paying fractions of a penny per play to the record companies, but the time it dribbles down to the artists it’s even smaller – this is no doubt a result of a deadlocked negation.

Taylor Swift is one of the biggest names in Pop at the moment, brand new album out and with Xmas just around the corner I wouldn’t blame her pulling her stuff to try to increase sales of downloads and physical sales.

Business in making money shocker.

Most albums probably get listened to once or twice, then put on the shelf and not touched again, doubly so manufactured pop drivel.

No different to there being a big delay between a film showing in the cinema, and appearing on Netflix. I’m supprised it’s not more common.

New, upcoming or smaller artists need the exposure, and all straming will help them one way or another.

Big artists don’t need the exposure – they can afford to pull stuff from Spotify etc. With the added bonus of bring to our attention that they only get fractions of a penny from each play.

Anyway, [cough]torrent[/cough].

Not the first time she’s pulled her catalogue from Spotify.

IIRC Apple are getting on the torrent bandwagon too.

Just found this article from Spotify…

http://www.spotifyartists.com/2-billion-and-counting/

IIRC Apple are getting on the torrent bandwagon too.

Hmmmm – possibly fronted by Taylor Swift! 😕

P-Jay – Member
but it still paying fractions of a penny

per play to the record companies, but the time it dribbles down

to the artists it’s even smaller – this is no doubt a result of a deadlocked negation.
[/quote]

Always needs to be a middleman in there! i reckon that’s the problem with music in more than one way.

I love Spotify, but am amazed that it works as a business and that established bands are happy to have their money on it. They must make such small amounts of money from it.
Not surprised big artists are pulling their catalogue from it. I hearda about this on the radio the other day and they were saying how well her album is selling.

I use Spotify free, as I really don’t mind the adverts but do keep thinking about paying for a subscription.

It’s rubbish though.

Pink Floyd new album is on Spotify but look at the sales.

Just read that link from the-muffin-man. Reckon it’s spot on.

His description about getting people on board with the free version, who then sign up to the paid version is pretty much exactly where I am. I haven’t signed up yet, but it’s just a matter of time really.

And I am adding artists and music to ‘my music’ that I would never normally consider. Then when I have time, I can look them up, see what their other music is all about and probably buy a CD or two (I still like old skool CDs).

Big round of applause from me for her.

Spotify rip off artists, have you seen the derisory royalties paid. I won’t use it and I support artists who don’t.

A point on @muffin’s linked piece from Spotify. They quote that artists get zero from piracy and $2 billion from them. The fact is piracy is still growing and Spotify are reducing artists income from paid income streams, people aren’t using Spotify instead of piracy, they are using Spotify instead of buying music.

if you choose to rent music instead of buying it then this is bound to happen

I’ve had to pirate all her albums now her back catalogue has gone from Spotify. Not pirated any music for years since Spotify came along…

Am tempted to cancel my Spotify subscription and just go back to pirating music.

^ Which is why I dont subscribe to Google Play Music thingy.

At £10 a month it’s too much for something I can only “Borrow” from the cloud. And I say that as a cloud fan. If I want to “share” music Ive bought from Google with Mrs Stoner, I have to download it (via google music manager) then upload it to her google account (via music manager, having first changed log in on The Big Computer). If I want to share a book Ive bought in google books, I have no idea how to do that, It’s not like putting a hardback in her pile on the bedside table. They really need to get round the sharing thing, as pirate torrents are still far more convenient sometimes.

I particularly dislike Google movie pricing. £2.50/£3.00 to “rent” a film – start in 30days, finish in 48hrs and then it’s Gone. When most of the films I want to get I can pick up as DVDs s/h on eBay for £2. If they did old catalogue movies at 50p, or £2 to buy Id fill my HDD with them.

I’d like to give her a hug…

for being so brave…

people aren’t using Spotify instead of piracy, they are using Spotify instead of buying music.

Actually, I stopped pirating music as I’ve got Spotify premium, it saves me the faff of having to find and download all the music I want.

the-muffin-man – Member
And apparently all her video are still on YouTube which supposedly offers even worse terms than Spotify.

From experience I wouldnt say they were worse than spotify.

teethgrinder – Member
New, upcoming or smaller artists need the exposure, and all straming will help them one way or another.

The tricky bit is always getting the exposure, lots of great new undiscovered music will always remain burried & hidden on iTunes / Spotify etc. Marketing & Exposure still vital.

jimster01 – Member
IIRC Apple are getting on the torrent bandwagon too.

Part of their stratergy in securing Dr Dre Beats I believe.

seosamh77 – Member
Always needs to be a middleman in there! i reckon that’s the problem with music in more than one way.

Are you implying record labels are a/the problem? I think you would be surprised how much good they do for their artists.

Lifer – Member
It’s rubbish though.
Pink Floyd new album is on Spotify but look at the sales.

Interested to know what you mean?

‘Pirate music’.

So if I steal a bike from a London city workers shed its alright cos he can afford it?

Ms Swift can afford to avoid Spotify but it is a help for artists trying to establish themselves. I have listened to the odd artist I have heard of and if I like it will buy something and if not move on. The royalty for an artist is pretty poor, less than 1p iirc.

I have a nice hi-fi system (Linn / Naim fancy cables etc)and find music through computer pretty rubbish so still buy vinyl or cd.

I want to see artists paid for there work, maybe if other major artists also pulled from Spotify they could collectively bargain for a better royalty for all artists including the up and coming ones who need the financial help more. I recognise that is a bit naive from me, doubt major stars are thinking of the whole community.

It’s hardly the same same hora. It would be more you like copying exactly the bike but letting the city worker keep the original.

Are you implying record labels are a/the problem? I think you would be surprised how much good they do for their artists.

If the record labels didn’t demand such onerous terms from the streaming companies then maybe Taylor would get paid a little more? Imo the record companies are desperately trying to cling to old methods of making money and refusing to adapt. Instead trying to sue their way out of trouble.

whatnobeer – Member
If the record labels didn’t demand such onerous terms from the streaming companies then maybe Taylor would get paid a little more? Imo the record companies are desperately trying to cling to old methods of making money and refusing to adapt. Instead trying to sue their way out of trouble.

Can you quote these ‘onerous terms’ for everyone’s reading?

I will respect your opinion but I suspect your not best informed to draw that conclusion.

Steve Albini knows his stuff. http://www.stereogum.com/1678835/steve-albini-thinks-the-internet-solved-the-problem-with-music/news/

Is there really a need for record labels anymore?

Taylor who?
Yeah, I know who she is, but who gives a toss what she does with her cacky pop music. She can chuck it all in the waste disposal for all I care.

Yeah, I know who she is, but who gives a toss what she does with her cacky pop music.

My 11yr old daughter cares!!! 😀

Buy her the CD 🙂

No! She can listen to Ariana Grande instead!

Worryingly the boy (4) loves dancing around to a bit of Taylor Smith (impossible to correct him…) on MTV even more than my daughters!

Edit – Is it OK to perve on Taylor and Ariana Grande…?

I quite like a bity of Swifty – her newish one, something about shaking is good and I liked the one about feeling 23, I feel about 23 when I’m riding, of course when I crash I feel every one of my 37 years ha ha

davidtaylforth – Member
Steve Albini knows his stuff. http://www.stereogum.com/1678835/steve-albini-thinks-the-internet-solved-the-problem-with-music/news/

Is there really a need for record labels anymore?

You can’t make sweeping generalisations for a varied global market like he does. Releasing music in different countries can be a very different task. It is not a case of simply putting music on sale. It can be a very complicated process, especially in the UK.

Of course you can release music without a label, there are examples of it all the time, but its a lot better when someone else takes the financial risk for you (a label) and puts in far more resources & experience than you could as an independent artist.

It’s evident the vast majority are unaware of the modern day roles of a record label & how the music industry actually works.

It would be great if Spotify introduced a ‘donate’ button, so you could donate a few quid to artists who’s music you have enjoyed. I used to spend £50-100 quid a month on new music, and now I just pay a tenner on Spotify. I still want to support artists though.

You shouldn’t feel obliged to make a financial contribution, the label / artist have decided to let you enjoy the music that way, buy an album if you feel compelled though 🙂

timc – Member
You can’t make sweeping generalisations for a varied global market like he does. Releasing music in different countries can be a very different task. It is not a case of simply putting music on sale. It can be a very complicated process, especially in the UK.

His whole point is that it doesn’t need to be.

What exactly in his piece do you disagree with?

Of course you can release music without a label, there are examples of it all the time, but its a lot better when someone else takes the financial risk for you (a label) and puts in far more resources & experience than you could as an independent artist.

What’s better?

Lifer – Member
His whole point is that it doesn’t need to be.

What’s better?

But it does need to be that way, because that is the way of the world, the way of the entertainment & music industry, it’s far far more complex than even he eludes to. You simply can’t compare releasing music globally in such a simplistic manner, not if you want it to reach its full potential anyway.

Which is better? Working with a label I would say.

I wanted to upload my bands EP to spotify a couple of months back-I’m not interested in it making money, so wasn’t really bothered about what the royalty payments were (let’s face it, no one is going to listen to it!)

It turns out that you have to pay to upload your tracks onto spotify! Erm, no thanks!

Taylor Swift is a pretty girl isn’t she. 😛

I really haven’t a clue about her music but somehow managed to google her. 😆

Spotify? Nice name but I don’t listen to music so rather irrelevant to me but her name is rather weird … not sure if that is a good thing or not. 😯

not if you want it to reach its full potential anyway.

What do you mean by full potential?

Music would still exist without the music industry. I guess most of the shite (Taylor Swift?) would disappear, along with the record industry and all the other unnecessary rubbish.

They really need to get round the sharing thing, as pirate torrents are still far more convenient sometimes.

This is the crux of the situation for me – people are lazy & will chose the easiest solution because the music industry is still hoping the internet & digital files will go away piracy is still the easy option.

Slightly different, but I like to rent movies, if I rent or buy from itunes I cannot stream it from my computer to my Chromecast to watch on the big telly & through my a/v amp. However if I download the movie illegally I have no such issue…

timc – Member
But it does need to be that way, because that is the way of the world, the way of the entertainment & music industry, it’s far far more complex than even he eludes to. You simply can’t compare releasing music globally in such a simplistic manner, not if you want it to reach its full potential anyway.

Full potential? How do you measure that in something so subjective as music? ‘Because it’s the Satus Quo’ is not a reason for doing anything.

Which is better? Working with a label I would say.

Many artists wouldn’t, and there are plenty of lawsuits to testify to that. And I asked “What’s better?” The music? The paycheck?

As a producer of many, many bands (dealing with major labels and independents), and a touring and record artist in his own right I think Albini know what he’s talking about. What exactly did you disagree with?

Taylor Swift is a pretty girl isn’t she

Well, duh. How else would she have made it??

Dammit, I just listened to Taylor Swift on Youtube … I mean why can’t she just sing with nice rhythm rather than talking/rapping through the music? … silly girl. 🙄