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

21–30 of 91 posts

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

#21

Post by stdbrouw »

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…

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.

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

#22

Post by nodata »

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…

If you make a statement, back it up with some facts. Otherwise it's just an opinion.

My opinion is that 10 bucks a month is reasonable because if you charge any more piracy would become a more attractive option.

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

#23

Post by BookPage »

eruditely wrote: post #20
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…

side-comment: are you using 'swag' wrong or has now swag apparently become equivalent to merchandise or clothing or something.

I'm pretty sure it's commonly known nowadays to be merchandise related to a label, yeah: http://swag.atlassian.com/

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

#24

Post by gamble »

stdbrouw wrote: post #21
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…

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 radio is not a substitute for recorded music. The inability to choose what you're listening to was always the stick that compelled listeners to purchase a recording. If you have Spotify, there is no reason to ever purchase that music in a download store.

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

#25

Post by lalos »

'New artists' always had it hard, I don't think it was easy to get your record printed and distributed all over the world, at least now people can find them easier with youtube, spotify and other services without a big risk (investment). If an artist is good, they will probably get viral (see Justin Bieber) and then earn all the big bucks like Thom and Nigel. Maybe I'm missing something else since I haven't read anything related to spotify in the last few weeks.

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

#26

Post by Fjslfj »

BookPage wrote: post #23
eruditely wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

side-comment: are you using 'swag' wrong or has now swag apparently become equivalent to merchandise or clothing or something.

I'm pretty sure it's commonly known nowadays to be merchandise related to a label, yeah: http://swag.atlassian.com/

This is hilarious. That was the original definition of the term, before 2010.

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

#27

Post by JacobAldridge »

eruditely wrote: post #20
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…

side-comment: are you using 'swag' wrong or has now swag apparently become equivalent to merchandise or clothing or something.

I've always used swag to mean 'stuff' or 'gear', based on the Australian "swag-man" who carried all his belongings in a swag (prototypical backpack). Here the word also sometimes specifically refers to a light sleeping mattress that formed part of a swaggies essential kit.

So for me, the #yolo application of swag to mean "has his shit together man" derived as a metaphorical application of the literal "has his gear together". And the OP's use to refer to swag as gear a band sells makes sense in the original definition.

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

#28

Post by thejosh »

stdbrouw wrote: post #21
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…

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 you don't have control over what the radio plays, or when ads play, you can't skip over ads (apart from changing channel, etc).

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

#29

Post by liveinoakland »

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 conservative. That means it's costing artists that much * users.

Why don't more artists take the Jay-Z approach? Build an app for your album, make people buy it, or sell it in bulk to a big brand like Samsung. This seems like a way for artists to take back the industry. Pirating music from a Jay-Z app seems much much harder than from a desktop. 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.

What am I missing?

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

#30

Post by NamTaf »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #27
eruditely wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

side-comment: are you using 'swag' wrong or has now swag apparently become equivalent to merchandise or clothing or something.

I've always used swag to mean 'stuff' or 'gear', based on the Australian "swag-man" who carried all his belongings in a swag (prototypical backpack). Here the word also sometimes specifically refers to a light sleeping mattress that formed part of a swaggies essential kit. So for me, the #yolo application of swag to mean "has his shit together man" derived as a metaphorical application of the literal "has his gear to…

I understood the #yolo version of 'swag' as being a contraction of 'swagger'. The sort of ballsy, narcissistic, uncaring persona that a a rock star or Jack Sparrow might have, for example.
Post reply on HN