Music | The Guardian: Awhile ago Thom Yorke and the rest of Radiohead got some attention when they pulled their recent record from Spotify. A number of other artists have also been in the news, publicly complaining about streaming music services (Black Keys, Aimee Mann and David Lowery of Camper van Beethoven and Cracker). Bob Dylan, Metallica and Pink Floyd were longtime Spotify holdouts – until recently. I've pulled as much of my catalogue from Spotify as I can. AC/DC, Garth Brooks and Led Zeppelin have never agreed to be on these services in the first place.
12 comments:
The online music streaming services and all the issues that go into the situation actually create a pretty interesting paradox. On one side, Byrne is right. If artists make most of their income from services like Spotify, then they're not making very much money at all, and the need to make money to sustain themselves might draw them away from the music industry. So in that sense, yes, the internet will be the death of creativity. There is, however, another side to this argument. Websites like Spotify, as well as Facebook and other sharing platforms, allow worldwide visibility for music artists. This ability to share their music with anyone, anywhere, inspires many artists whose only audience might've otherwise been the Christmas ornament boxes in their garage.
There are obviously gains and losses with both of these perspectives, and, like Byrne, I do not have a solution.
I think many people in my generation now take services like Spotify for granted- many people aren't just reluctant to pay for their music, they think it's ridiculous if we're asked to pay for something that we can get for free elsewhere. It's obviously a problem; artists need to get paid somehow, and artists who are just starting out can't depend on concert tours and tee-shirts. This could lead to a music slowly sounding the same- when you're depending on millions of clicks to earn the bare minimum of money to survive, you're going to play to the largest audience. I'm not sure how to solve this- Byrne's argument, that artists should stop putting their music on spotify, doesnt make much sense to me. It might work for a few big bands who are already well-known enough that people will seek them out elsewhere, but many people get their music exclusively from Spotify and Pandora, and if they can't find one band that they don't care too much about there then they will simply find other music.
What I worry more about is the fact that streaming services allow individuals to get music for free, completely free. Spotify and pandora make you pay if you don't want commercials or a subscription, but you don't always have to pay. These services shouldn't be the only source of income, and you should weigh how you use them closely. Camille points out one of the greatest points about these services: your music can be heard by anyone anywhere. The article states that small musicians can make a 50/50 profit, well, why don't you negotiate a better deal if you don't like it. If all you make is $16 from a million plays, then you gave in the to monopoly and domination of the streaming company. Whats the benefit to you or lack there of from doing this over any standard radio or satellite radio? Lets get real about why this is an issue. Make it work for you. If you don't like how something is done to begin with, don't do it, don't get drawn in.
I don't think it's quite as simple as just making it work for you. There are some legitimate issues here. I agree with Sarah that we've definitely started taking services like these for granted. I remember just going to the music shop and purchasing a CD (or, cough, cassette tape) because it looked interesting. It was frustrating if you bought one and you ended up not liking it and it's been amazing to be able to preview music before purchase. I'm guilty myself of not buying as much music as I used to -- it's so easy to just listen to Pandora. But, I do have to say that when I'm listening to Pandora, I take note of the songs I hear that I like and most of the time I end up going to itunes and buying the album. As a musician myself, I really appreciate all the work musicians do and I try my best to support them as I can but I can definitely see how others might not view it the same way…or how people can just get lazy about the whole process. Anyway, I think these services are necessary and helpful but I do think artists need to be able to make a living or we are going to sorely miss them -- I think this is something that applies to all areas, not just the music industry and it is all part of moving into a new realm of internet culture, etc. etc. I'm sure we'll work it out somehow!
I definitely use Spotify to discover artists, so I personally don't see the point of that portion of Byrne's argument. I've discovered artists and followed them as a direct result of hearing them on streaming sites. Many music fans are aware of these situations involving record labels and payment, so they do make a conscious effort to buy the music and support the artist, directly. The internet's a great way to get your voice out there; prior to the internet, how would you really promote your music? Play hard and wish for an agent. With the internet, indie music producers/artists/bands/etc are putting themselves out there, without a need for confirmation of anyone else. They're not being controlled by the administration of the label, they're working to get their music into as many ears as possible.
I know there are a lot of complicated sides to arguments about the ways that we purchase and listen to music, but one of the problems that stands out to me the most is with the record companies. It appears that like many industries where the hard workers are at the bottom and those in charge get paid a ridiculously disproportionate amount. This is clearly not the only issue, but it seems like artists getting a more reasonable amount of pay for their work would help. Another thing I would consider is, how much are people willing to pay for their Spotify subscriptions? I don't have it so I don't know the exact fee, but I wonder what a diference it could make if the company was able to give artists a little bit more for each time their song is streamed. What makes me said about reading this article is that it seems like the people in charge aren't really thinking about what is best for the musicians, which seems crazy considering that they started a company for music.
The most disturbing part of this article is that services like Spotify say that domination will add up from tiny grains of sand to create a desert. I think this idea is troublesome to an industry that thrives on individuality I think that allowing an individual company to moderate art will grant that company the ability to define art. It may seem that this slippery slope argument is some what invalid, however, part of censorship that is often under looked is a single supply. Not only does that supply choose what they want to sell, but they also demand the cost of what they are selling. It seems as these streaming sites are becoming versions of industrial trusts. The service of streaming is something that most people desire the most out of movies, TV, music, and art. The easy access to these things is why streaming is so appealing, however, I think the artist need to find ways to stream for themselves than have one website.
Even though we keep pointing to this being a continuously developing problem, I have not seen much of a fall in the performance of the music industry. Artists are still doing just as many tours, just as many performances, putting out just as many albums as they ever have. When you talk about services like Spotify, you are not necessarily discussing a free service. The reason the free version has advertisements is so the service can take the money those advertisers pay and pay whatever royalties they pay to be able to provide that music. With the paid service, they are using your money to do the same. It is not the same as ripping things for free offline, while poses an entirely different issue in both legal and monetary terms. Personally, I think Spotify is a brilliant idea, and I don't see anything wrong with it. The same goes for Pandora, etc. And, at some point, you have to strike a balance between wanting people to buy hard copies of CDs and wanting your music heard by as many ears as possible as well.
As other people have said, I don't think that you can say to artists "well, if you don't like it, you don't have to join." The point this article makes is that if the music business continues to grow its use of streaming services like Spotify, then those artists that don't buy into the system won't be able to sustain themselves because no one will be exposed to their music at all, and so they won't even be able to bank on having t-shirt or tour sales. I am absolutely guilty of primarily using Spotify and Pandora to listen to most of my music, and I absolutely also use it to discover new bands (so I don't really agree with the article's point about discovery), but it's true that if these services continue to grow and take over the market, fewer and fewer people will buy songs on itunes, and so fewer artists will be able to sustain themselves on music alone.
I'm so happy that David Byrne is a grumpy Troglodyte like myself, and not just because I love his music. I listened to a Talking Heads album just last night, on Spotify, essentially for free. I'm sorry David.
I appreciate that Mr. Byrne ends his article by admitting that he doesn't have a solution to this complex problem, and I think he does a good job of focusing the issue on what really matters: how will this affect the future of art and those who make it? There is no denying that music will be streamed from now on. Technological progress has always and will always define the parameters around which art is made and consumed. Before the Victrola, people had pianos in there homes and enjoyed the art of music by buying sheet music and knowing how to play it themselves (ahh the god old days). So there's no fighting progress and there's no going back for us or Mr. Byrne, unfortunately.
Is it unfair that artists don't get paid what they deserve for their work? Yes. Is it true that they will get paid very little under the current system of streaming royalties? Apparently. Does that mean the art itself will suffer? I don't know but I don't think so. Making great art has never been particularly well compensated line of work, because for most great artists it isn't about compensation. Art isn't a job it's a vocation (Latin for "calling"). It's a need. An artist can't just decide to go do something else, although they often have to to make ends meet. I think tying success in art to financial success is a philosophical mistake and will never lead to better art. There's plenty of very successful commercial art to prove this, and unfortunately there will be plenty more. And the fact is, the advent of online music has produced literally millions more "artists" than could ever have been cultivated by the now dying studio system of Mr. Byrne's heyday. ANd I can't prove this because the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis just started including "Entertainment" in GDP calculations this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/your-money/getting-creative-with-the-gdp.html?_r=0), but I have to believe that, in terms of a percentage of our economy, the amount of money going to music, film, television, etc. has never been higher. It just isn't getting to the right people, but then I bet the Catholic Church has made a lot more off the Sistine Chapel than Michelangelo ever did.
I don't have a solution either, but I don't see this as an eschatological discussion the way Mr. Byrne does. This is not the end of art as we know it, in fact it seems to me the continuation of a long tradition of starving for your art, a tradition Mr. Byrne knows something about himself, I'm sure.
Interesting that I'm typing this comment while listening to Spotify. I always wondered what the agreements were with Spotify and record labels or artists. I agree with what others have said in terms of businesses such as Spotify and Youtube being a great medium of publicity for new artists who want to get worldwide airplay, that would not ever be achievable via local radio stations. However, I don't think that any artist should look at Spotify as their main earnings avenue. I also don't think that any artist has that goal. Also an interesting fact that the author mentioned is that major record labels get a pretty good payday from it, therefore I don't think that anything will change anytime soon. On the other hand, looking at it from the point of view of an artist who has been in the game forever and is used to record or album sales and making money off of everyone who listens to their music, I can understand why they would be reluctant or against such media such as Spotify. Remember when people didn't want music videos? Change is hard.
This is and will be a controversial issue for the near future (at least in my opinion). The reason I say this is because things like spotify will not go away anytime soon. However, artists could be on to something when pulling some work off of things like spotify, but leave them on other services like pandora. I say this because Pandora will not let you choose songs, so it's a great way to discover music. But using spotify, you may never here some of the smaller artists. It'll be interesting to see where this goes.
Post a Comment