Radiohead’s Thom Yorke and longtime collaborator Nigel Godrich have pulled their recent Atoms for Peace album, Amok, and Yorke’s solo album The Eraser, from Spotify. They join a slew of artists who have spoken out against the popular music subscription service, claiming that the “freemium” streaming model simply doesn’t generate the revenue that indie artists are owed. (Oh and just look at the mess Pandora is in).
The conversation is below and I invite you to read it in full… the argument isn’t exactly a new one. Many artists have chosen not to put their music on Spotify, either because they think it’ll cannibalize their record sales or because they think they won’t get paid what they are owed. And it’s a fair point… as Godrich points out, the record labels are really making the money in this new revenue model, not just because of the royalty deals they have in place with Spotify but also simply because they have large catalogues which are heavily streamed.
Of course, major labels have always gobbled up the majority of recorded music revenue… in the days of physical, digital, and now in the cloud. As Godrich points out, the difference now is: the way Spotify works is that the money is divided up by percentage of total streams. When just one apple pie is meant to feed everyone at the table, it makes a huge difference how big your spoon is.
So Atoms for Peace decides that’s not cool and makes a big fuss on Twitter… big artists have done it before. And let’s face it, it’s pretty easy for Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich to furrow their brows, cross their arms and put their collective foot down because well, they’re Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich. People can’t find their album on Spotify? Well, at least they were looking for it. They know it exists in the world and they’ll find it someplace else. Maybe even pay for it.
For a slew of young, up and coming artists, there isn’t much of a choice about whether to put your music on Spotify or not. Our culture has fundamentally shifted – it’s not about what music you own, it’s about what music you share. And for a young artist, trying to rise above the clutter of the internet, having placement on every social network and music service can be critical to finding fans.
But here’s why this time, to me at least, the “anti-spotify rebellion from the big artist” has a different ring to it…
Godrich: I’m not bitching about not getting paid. It’s about standing up for other artists’ rights.
Godrich isn’t just another musical icon missing the old days, mumbling in a corner “what ever happened to kids these days and not buying CDs.” He’s not wishing for a return to the way things were… he’s demanding more from a future that has so much potential to be better.
Godrich: It’s up to streaming providers to come back with a better way of supporting new music producers. It’s not for us to think up how it could work. That’s your department.
It’s only been a little over ten years since the first iPod came out… the industry is evolving rapidly with the advent of new technology and for the most part, that’s meant that more and more artists are able to break out of the label system and create music that reaches the masses independently (hello Macklemore).
But artists shouldn’t be forced onto a platform that takes from them more than it gives. We are headed beyond that. Spotify represents a huge opportunity to market new artists to a hungry consumer base… it’s a great service. I happen to like it a lot. SoundCtrl even gave it a FlashFWD award in 2012 for Best in Discovery.
But the tech should always support the music and the musicians that make it… not the other way around. Spotify is growing into its own power. It’s still perfecting the recipe… but like a good baker, it’s got to figure out the balance. No one wants salty pie.
……………………………………..
It started with a post via Nigel Godrich’s Twitter below:
Anyway. Here’s one. We’re off of Spotify. Can’t do that no more man. Small meaningless rebellion. Someone gotta say something. It’s bad for new music. This is just Eraser and Amok and Ultraista. The reason is that new artists get paid fuck all with this model. It’s an equation that just doesn’t work. The music industry is being taken over by the back door and if we don’t try and make it fair for new music producers and artists then the art will suffer. Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system. The numbers don’t even add up for Spotify yet. But it’s not about that. It’s about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable. Meanwhile small labels and new artists can’t even keep their lights on. It’s just not right. Plus people are scared to speak up or not take part as they are told they will lose invaluable exposure if they don’t play ball. Meanwhile millions of streams gets them a few thousand dollars. Not like radio at all. Anyway. Thems the breaks. Opinions welcome but discussion and new thinking necessary. If you have a massive catalogue – a major label for example then you’re quids in. It’s money for old rope. But making new recorded music needs funding. Some records can be made in a laptop, but some need musician and skilled technicians. These things cost money. Pink Floyd’s catalogue has already generated billions of dollars for someone (not necessarily the band) so now putting it on a streaming site makes total sense. But if people had been listening to Spotify instead of buying records in 1973 I doubt very much if Dark Side would have been made. It would just be too expensive. Anyway thumbs hurting now… 
Thom Yorke then added:
Make no mistake new artists you discover on #Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly being rolling in it. Simples.
A spokesperson for Spotify responded (via MusicWeek):
Spotify’s goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music… We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base, and make a living from the music we all love.
Right now we’re still in the early stages of a long-term project that’s already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We’ve already paid US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music.
We’re 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers.
To which Godrich has responded (via P4K):
So Spotify say they have generated $500 million dollars for ‘license holders.” The way that Spotify works is that the money is divided up by percentage of total streams. Big labels have massive back catalogues so their 40-year-old record by a dead artist earns them the same slice of the pie as a brand new track by a new artist. The big labels did secret deals with Spotify and the like in return for favourable royalty rates. The massive amount of catalogue being streamed guarantees that they get the big massive slice of the pie (that $500 million) and the smaller producers and labels get pittance for their comparatively few streams.
This is what’s wrong. Catalogue and new music cannot be lumped in together. The model massively favours the larger companies with big catalogues. They need the new artists to be on the system to guarantee new subscribers and lock down the “new landscape.” This is how they figure they’ll make money in the future. But the model pays pittance to the new artist right now. An inconvenient fact which will keep coming up. I feel a responsibility to speak up when I see something going on which I think is unfair. I’m not bitching about not getting paid. It’s about standing up for other artists’ rights. It’s up to streaming providers to come back with a better way of supporting new music producers. It’s not for us to think up how it could work. That’s your department.
Comments are closed.