Taylor Swift & Spotify

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/10/26/economics_study_says_taylor_swift_is_wrong_about_spotify.html

 

 

So, basically the Musicians aren't losing out since spotify became a thing, it's just heard more by more people.

 

So all the swizzle's stunt did was deprive some people of listening to her songs, it didn't make her anyone else more money.

 

Thought on piracy and other sheet relating to this sheet storm 

[Face McShooty]

my take is similar to Garth Brooks' take, although I'm unsure why he doesn't put his music on iTunes, but he puts it on an iTunes alternative (Ghost Tunes), here is his take on the whole iTunes, Spotify and even YouTube thing going on

[.Rai]

The study's not wrong, but it's also not related to the point Swift is making until the last paragraph. You ve been sucked in by the sensationalist title.

 

Taylor Swift is 100% right in what she says about Spotify, and there's no reason to disagree with her as her point is that Spotify aren't paying artists enough money, which is completely true. No-one's denying that it is giving artists publicity, but they should be getting money on top of that. Certainly not a stunt as you put it.

 

The last paragraph has an aspect of truth to it. Part of the blame lies with Spotify but some of it lies with the record labels themselves. For obvious reasons, Taylor Swift is not about to go bashing her record label though. Also, Taylor Swift has never really talked about piracy beyond "you should pay for music", which is obvious. If anything, the founder of Spotify also thinks piracy is an issue. But that's tangentially related.

 

Basically, the study's interesting but ultimately pointing out things that neither Taylor Swift or anyone are actually disagreeing with.

[Agro]

A lot of artists have complained how little they're paid from Spotify. I recall one British musician comparing how much he makes from getting played on BBC Radio 1 versus being on Spotify.

 

Spotify's argument, which in part assumes that Spotify is considered a radio platform, is that while they're paid only a few cents per a single play, that single play is only being heard through one user's account, whereas the same song on BBC Radio 1 would be heard by, on average, they suggested, 8 million+ people. They then suggested that if the same song was played on Spotify 8 million times, it would net the musician more money than one play on BBC Radio 1.

 

And comparatively, a user could just buy a song off of iTunes for .99-1.29 cents (I believe those are still the rates, right?) A single user listening to that same song ~18-20 times would then arguably net the musician more money than they would if they had just bought the song.

 

So those are Spotify's arguments. I'm not too sure if I buy the one that compares them to a radio station, though.

 

It's iffy. I do wonder if Spotify could even survive if it had to pay out more.

[.Rai]

A lot of artists have complained how little they're paid from Spotify. I recall one British musician comparing how much he makes from getting played on BBC Radio 1 versus being on Spotify.

 

Spotify's argument, which in part assumes that Spotify is considered a radio platform, is that while they're paid only a few cents per a single play, that single play is only being heard through one user's account, whereas the same song on BBC Radio 1 would be heard by, on average, they suggested, 8 million+ people. They then suggested that if the same song was played on Spotify 8 million times, it would net the musician more money than one play on BBC Radio 1.

 

And comparatively, a user could just buy a song off of iTunes for .99-1.29 cents (I believe those are still the rates, right?) A single user listening to that same song ~18-20 times would then arguably net the musician more money than they would if they had just bought the song.

 

So those are Spotify's arguments. I'm not too sure if I buy the one that compares them to a radio station, though.

 

It's iffy. I do wonder if Spotify could even survive if it had to pay out more.

Pfft, using the radio station argument is so ludicrous, if that's actually what they're using. Streaming should be kept distinct from the radio platform.

 

It's definitely an issue from both the record labels and the streaming services as they've entered a mutually profitable agreement where the artist only gets about 20% of the cut, the distributor gets about 25% and the label gets 55%. It's not a case of "record labels are evil" or "Spotify is evil", but people like Swift are definitely saying someone needs to shift their position.

[Agro]

Pfft, using the radio station argument is so ludicrous, if that's actually what they're using. Streaming should be kept distinct from the radio platform.

 

It's definitely an issue from both the record labels and the streaming services as they've entered a mutually profitable agreement where the artist only gets about 20% of the cut, the distributor gets about 25% and the label gets 55%. It's not a case of "record labels are evil" or "Spotify is evil", but people like Swift are definitely saying someone needs to shift their position.

Meanwhile Macklemore's over on the side just laughing.

[.Rai]

Meanwhile Macklemore's over on the side just laughing.

Ah, yeah, indie artists (and especially when you're an act as big as Macklemore) do get a a much better shtick.