I'm paraphrasing here, but I heard a quote from Trent Reznor that went something like this, "It took them two generations to convince us that music wasn't worth paying for." -something like that. Now, you could take that in the context of illegal downloading, or this way:
Before you read on, I must admit, that I have NOT researched what I'm about to say, so I reserve the right to change my mind later.
First of all, as a consumer, I think it's awesome. I may even sign up for Spotify. (But I doubt it)
As a musician, I'm pretty astounded. Everyone views music as this weird exemption to the rules. If you were a coffee shop owner, and someone setup a coffee stand right in front of your business, and gave away all the drinks on your menu for free, you would take issue with that. I guess people view music differently because we have been convinced that music should be free.
When I watch the video above, it's almost heartbreaking, but for a different reason than you may think. I don't have any hopes of ever making a good living off of selling music. I gave that up last year. I'm deeply bothered with the fact that there is currently no remunerable value attached to music. A lot of the bands you listen to took out a small fortune (sometimes the equivalent of opening a small coffee shop) to make that album. They labored over it, and loved it. It is now expected that their masterpiece should be yours at no cost. A new system needs to be in place. Elsie had this idea:
Much like the ad revenue program that youtube set up last year, bands with high traffic on their page/songs for a site like Spotify, would share in the ad revenue. Since people visit the site- not because they love the site itself, but because of the bands that are exploited- the bands should get a share of the ad revenue. (I'm assuming since Spotify is free, that is how they make their money).
I've heard from many of you on this subject, and you all seem like you really love music. I would love to see a change here. Much in the same way that there was a "Fair Trade" movement for coffee, I'd love to see one for music. I would support a site that was kind to it's artists. I think a lot of people would even pay an extra nickel per song if they knew that the band was being taken care of. I know, it's hard to beat free, but "free" over time usually ends up meaning "without value".
...........................................................
I did a little research after typing this up, and it appears that Spotify is attempting to pay the bands with ad sharing. HOWEVER, it's a pathetic sum. You can read all about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/17/major-labels-spotify
Make sure to scroll down to the part about Magnus Uggla, it's key.
Thanks for reading.
Jeremy
This is so disappointing. Such exuberance over free music & coming from major press. Paying an artist for their work is a part of the experience of the work. It's a partnership. It's standing with someone to make creative projects possible.
Posted by: Sage Dawson | July 19, 2011 at 12:58 PM
I still love to buy CDs and LPs. In my opinion, it is sites like Spotify that convince artists to only release their album electronically (which, I understand is a much more cost effective way of selling music, and I respect the artists decision to do so) but I still prefer to have the liner notes, the artwork, and even placing it in my *gasp* CD player or on my record player to listen to it.
Posted by: Christina Bowles | July 19, 2011 at 01:09 PM
I never ever thought I'd read the name Magnus Uggla in your blog. I'm not saying that's bad or good, just unexpected.
As I'm from Sweden I've known of Spotify for years and it's a huge hit over here. And as I said before, I'm not sure if that's bad or good either.
Posted by: Jenny | July 19, 2011 at 02:45 PM
As someone from the UK I have consistently avoided Spotify. As most of the bands/artists I listen to are not selling millions of records I am determined to continue to purchase the music from the artists themselves. The amount of money artists receive from Spotify is pitiful.
Posted by: Tim | July 19, 2011 at 05:20 PM
Something drastically has to change with how music is monetized.
Spotify has the potential in what could be a philosophical change that needs to happen in people. People need to understand they need to PAY for music they listen to.
Like the advent of Netflix and Hulu, subscription/ad based content delivery for entertainment isn't new. And an even older example would be local television and an even crazier example is cable television (crazy in that you pay for your cable subscription and you STILL have to watch ads - but this has become the norm now).
SO... yes artists are not being paid truck loads from their plays on Spotify but at least they are getting paid something for each play.
Jeremy you have, just as many other artists do, in total, thousands of plays of your tracks from your albums that someone has uploaded to YouTube so people can freely stream your music. But YouTube isn't writing checks and neither is the many other illegal torrent sites and file hosting sites.
Spotify's free service will most likely hook people into paying for their premium service so that they have access to Spotify's music on their mobile/music devices. Point in case the success of Spotify in Europe, hundreds of thousands of paying users - this suggests that people are not just going to simply leech from the free service. They are convinced/motivated to spend their dollars on music.......
.......and that right there is the philosophical change that needs to happen in how people view music and how they acquire it.
Posted by: Ryan | July 20, 2011 at 03:35 AM
well said, Jeremy. as the wife of a touring musician myself, we have been having similar discussions. thank you for your insight! sidenote: m'huz and I think you should be making a TON of money for the music you write.
Posted by: Katie Henbest | July 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Ryan, I think the reason we may not completely agree on this, is that I reject the sentiment, "Well, at least you're getting paid something". Yes, something is better than nothing, or is it? If someone steals a CD from the merch table when I'm not looking, that's annoying. If someone walks up and says "I have $10 in my wallet, but I'm going to give you three cents for your album. Just be happy you're getting paid", then that's OFFENSIVE. What's worse, 3 cents is WAY more than Spotify would give me. A philosophical change is certainly due. But it needs to change a LOT if music is to remain-no, become a value resource. To make minimum wage from Spotify, I'd have to receive 4,053,110 plays per month. I found a chart about this that I'll try to post.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 20, 2011 at 12:40 PM
I truly and honestly totally understand where you are coming from, and I completely agree with you. You are right.
However, wether one may see it for the best or for the worst the times have changed and unfortunately I just do not see them going back.
Napster came out in 1999 and for the past 12 years since then the music industry and it's revenue has never been the same and I really hate to be a pessimist but I don't think it will ever be the same as it was back in the "good ol' days".
BUT even at the height of record sales (the good ol' days) the top artists still mostly made their money off of touring, not record sales. Record sales has always been supplemental to an artist's income.
If you are signed to a record label your making pennies on the dollar anyway on album sales after it gets all chopped up when it's all said and done (I'm sure there are some exemptions and "golden contracts").
So actually when you think about it the people that should be ticked off about Spotify are record labels, but they signed the deal with Spotify so apparently not?
As I said before, I agree with you. You are right, and my view on this is not ideal. I'm open to having my mind changed on this but so far I really see subscription and ad based music being the future, especially with the new move to the "cloud".
Posted by: Ryan | July 20, 2011 at 11:26 PM
This makes me really angry. I wish people would just pay for what they like! If we could somehow start a movement along the lines of Don't Spend Money On A Whopper You Know Will Give You Diarrhea But Spend It On A Song You Will Carry In Your Heart Forever..
Posted by: nancy lili g | July 21, 2011 at 10:11 AM
Noisetrade.com They're already doing what you mentioned with fair trade music. I don't always pay for the music I download there, but I have fallen in love with several bands through the downloads and then bought more of the band's music. :)
Posted by: SuchanSuch | August 07, 2011 at 02:51 PM