Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

digitalmusicnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#41

Post by bajsejohannes »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #6
jmduke wrote: post #3

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas th…

$10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. And the ad revenue from a majority free user base for infinite access to all music ever created is definitely unreasonable. It's hard to argue with th connivence factor. However right now Spotify is destroying an existing model, not paying artists, and losing money hand over fist. It's lose/lose/lose. I'd rather consumers just pirate the m…

I might be a minority, but I'm paying more for music with Spotify than I've ever done buying CDs. (I do pay $16.50 a month, being in Norway). Doesn't seem all that unreasonable given my habits.

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#42

Post by unicornporn »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #6
jmduke wrote: post #3

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas th…

$10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. And the ad revenue from a majority free user base for infinite access to all music ever created is definitely unreasonable. It's hard to argue with th connivence factor. However right now Spotify is destroying an existing model, not paying artists, and losing money hand over fist. It's lose/lose/lose. I'd rather consumers just pirate the m…

All music ever created? I cringe when I read stuff like that.

I'm sorry, but this is not simply nitpicking. We will change our perception of music history and music itself if we fool ourselves that what these outlets carry is the entire history of music. I'd say around 40% of the music that I have on my HDDs are not available on Spotify. That's just guesstimating, it could be even higher.

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#43

Post by icebraining »

liveinoakland wrote: post #29

i'm an avid spotify user (~4+ hours a day) and honestly have no idea how this is a sustainable business. how much are the 20+ artists a day that I listen to making from my $10 a month? genuinely don't understand how this is working. there are so many artists that come out with new albums that I would buy except for the fact that I can get them free on spotify. It's saving me probably 100-200/year and that's being con…

Pirating music from a Jay-Z app seems much much harder than from a desktop.

There are already dozens of torrents with thousands of peers on The Pirate Bay. It doesn't really matter how hard it is, as long as a single individual can do it.

I think we're on the verge of a total shift back to the world of pre-CD burners where you simply had to pay 10-20 to listen to an album.

Before CD burners we had tapes. The logo of the music industry campaign against home taping is actually part of The Pirate Bay's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#44

Post by noonespecial »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #6
jmduke wrote: post #3

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas th…

$10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. And the ad revenue from a majority free user base for infinite access to all music ever created is definitely unreasonable. It's hard to argue with th connivence factor. However right now Spotify is destroying an existing model, not paying artists, and losing money hand over fist. It's lose/lose/lose. I'd rather consumers just pirate the m…

But its not $10 for all music ever created any more than its $15 for all the food on the buffet at Golden Corral. Its all you can eat, not all the food. There's only so much music that can stream through one set of speakers in a month.

Blind Pilot was half the OP's playlist. They'd get $5. How many artists would kill to get $5/month from their fans?

The real problem is that Blind Pilot might have gotten a whole penny from the OP's month of patronage. That's the part of the system that's broken. The part where fans can choose from all the artists that have ever created is a feature (and a damn good one), not a bug.

I'm starting to think that beyond "not pirating", we have some moral responsibility to make sure that the money we do "pay" for our music actually makes it through to the creator of that music, otherwise we're just buying moral absolution from immoral middle-men along with some (lazy) convenience.

Edit: 'Egbert' is way ahead of me!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6044140

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#45

Post by foobarbazqux »

unicornporn wrote: post #42
forrestthewoods wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$10/month for infinite access to all music ever created just isn't reasonable. And the ad revenue from a majority free user base for infinite access to all music ever created is definitely unreasonable. It's hard to argue with th connivence factor. However right now Spotify is destroying an existing model, not paying artists, and losing money hand over fist. It's lose/lose/lose. I'd rather consumers just pirate the m…

All music ever created? I cringe when I read stuff like that. I'm sorry, but this is not simply nitpicking. We will change our perception of music history and music itself if we fool ourselves that what these outlets carry is the entire history of music. I'd say around 40% of the music that I have on my HDDs are not available on Spotify. That's just guesstimating, it could be even higher.

Especially if you consider performances that didn't get recorded for one reason or another. All music on the four or five majors that has seen a CD release in the US? Yes, this is fairly reasonable.

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#46

Post by noonespecial »

egbert wrote: post #19
jmduke wrote: post #3

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas th…

I created something like that: http://musiclove.rs You hook up your last.fm profile and each week you get to divide an x amount of money between the artists you listened to. I've been using it myself for about a year now. The only catch is that you need to find the email addresses of artists you want to pay to yourself, so they can be paid with PayPal. This 'catch' allowed me to use it as single user for a year thoug…

And this is why I love HN. I just came to the conclusion that I really should think about doing something like this and pondering if there was a way I could automate it as I wrote my comment(1). And here it is. Awesome.

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6044279

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#47

Post by henrik_w »

Avid Spotify-user here (paying about $15 a month in Sweden). I just wish they can work it out so the artists get paid fairly - it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

On the topic of pirating as an alternative - it is just sooo nice not having to manage a bunch of MP3s. Playlists are just way more convenient.

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#48

Post by coldtea »

jmduke wrote: post #3

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas th…

>It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas that new artists are being trampled by Music 2.0 with success stories like Karmin and Chance the Rapper, who put out free material (via YouTube and a free mixtape, respectively) and the massive coverage launched them into the national spotlight.

Those stories are BS though. Sure, a tiny minority might get on the spotlight thusly (a tiny minority is ever on the spotlight anyway, by definition).

That doesn't change the negatives for: those already on the spotlight, those not in the spotlight but with a decent-ish following.

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#49

Post by stdbrouw »

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #38
stdbrouw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how unreasonable is $0/month for radio? I'm happy there's people who can look at services like Spotify and Rdio critically, but I don't think appeals to intuition like "that can't be right?!" help us much.

Because there is not such a thing like $0/month for radio, as you are forced to hear ads, and the advertisers pay for it, and you are forced the songs you hear, witch some people paying for controlling it. Yes, in the old days some companies controlled which music was heard and which not, and those gatekeepers were not as cheap as you thing. Definitively not 0$/month.

That's contrived. I'm not paying anything for radio. $0/month. And the free versions of Rdio and Spotify have ads too.

Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify

#50

Post by morphyn »

egbert wrote: post #19
jmduke wrote: post #3

For reference: Radiohead's pay-what-you-want model for In Rainbows was the first of its kind, and groundbreaking. It's entirely possible this starts a trend. On the other end: I don't like the idea of new artists not getting paid (I try to go out of my way and buy tickets for indie musicians I like or, failing that, purchase swag), but as a consumer I like Spotify a lot. It's also hard for me to conflate the ideas th…

I created something like that: http://musiclove.rs You hook up your last.fm profile and each week you get to divide an x amount of money between the artists you listened to. I've been using it myself for about a year now. The only catch is that you need to find the email addresses of artists you want to pay to yourself, so they can be paid with PayPal. This 'catch' allowed me to use it as single user for a year thoug…

Awesome! A gittip.com for music. This "only catch" seems like a big one though. I guess it will get better when/if the user base grows significantly.
Post reply on HN