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

61–70 of 91 posts

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

#61

Post by anigbrowl »

lalos wrote: post #25

'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 anyt…

It was certainly always hard to become a megastar, but it used to be a lot easier to put out a genre record (eg techno, drum'n'bass, jazz) because a well-run label had a pretty good sense of what would sell enough copies to turn a modest profit for everyone involved. An album that sold 4 or 5000 copies to a niche audience could make about 25k each for the artist and the label (record deals in genre music are generally a more equitable than major label ones). That's not a lot, but it's not terrible either, you could pay your rent with it. Nowadays you'd be lucky to sell 1000 copies, so small labels are correspondingly less willing to take a risk on unknown artists, and there are fewer labels with the expertise in distribution, marketing, and developing an artist's career than there used to be.

If an artist is good, they will probably get viral

Don't be absurd. Justin Bieber is talented, but he's also extremely attractive and happens to be proficient at the sort of music that appeals to teenage girls. That's a bit like expecting J. Random Developer to enjoy the same sort of success as Bill Gates, and concluding that if he doesn't it must be because he's no good as a programmer.

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

#62

Post by hipsters_unite »

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…

Exactly. I've got an Rdio subscription but I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. As a small label owner where we put in more investment than we've ever gotten out, it's crazy to see a thousand streams generating a couple of pounds given that those are all lost sales... but you think 'ah well, at least people are listening to it'.

Also, as a commenter below noted, pay-what-you-want is not new at all. Off the top of my head The Crimea shifted about 100,000 free downloads of their second LP after leaving Warners, quite a bit before In Rainbows.[0] As a second aside, I interviewed a pretty big artist a year or so after whose backing band knew Radiohead and, though this is hearsay obviously, they suggested the reason In Rainbows wasn't toured much beyond festivals was lack of tour support capital. I always sort of suspected that they fudged the numbers on sales/profit for that record, so that could be an indicator, who knows.

[0] http://www.thecrimea.net/products/502351-secrets-of-the-witc...

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

#63

Post by k-mcgrady »

lukifer wrote: post #59
gamble wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fast, reliable, and unmetered wireless is by no means ubiquitous. There is still the benefit of being able to play offline, burn to CD for the car, share with friends, etc. Admittedly, the incentive to want offline music may continue to diminish over time.

Spotify offers offline access of their $10 p/m plan.

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

#64

Post by Socketubs »

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…

Just subscribe!

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

#65

Post by GotAnyMegadeth »

anonymoushn wrote: post #33
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…

I would definitely pay $10/mo for a service that had even half the music I want to listen to, but there aren't any.

You need to discover some new music :-p

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

#66

Post by k-mcgrady »

2pasc wrote: post #18

I have always wondered why Spotify does not raise their subscription fees (maybe after one year for example). If they asked me to pay more than $10/month, which seems a totally unreasonable number for everybody in this market, I would just do it because the convenience is awesome, and it is so much cheaper than any other legal alternatives for music lovers...

I think they could certainly raise their prices in the US. Unless I'm mistaken it's cheaper there than anywhere else. e.g. In the UK it costs £9.99 which is just over $15.

They could also differentiate their plans better and add in higher end ones. I think they would make more money and not impact consumers too badly if they charged for use. e.g. $5 per month for 20 songs per day. $10 per month for 40 songs per day. $20 per month unlimited.

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

#67

Post by kitsune_ »

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…

You're not missing anything. Spotify is horrible for artists.

I usually discover new music through SoundCloud and niche web sites. I buy music directly through services like Bandcamp. I make a conscious effort to find musicians and producers that I like and which have a low play count.

I started making electronic music 15 to 20 years ago. There's no way in hell I'd ever want to do this as a full time job and risk my livelihood on it. I know how time consuming the creation of a song or track can be. That's why I want to support people who have the guts to invest their very hearts and souls into such an endeavor, I'm way too big of a coward to ever do that.

People have such a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to music. They are too unimaginative to fill their own empty lives with meaning and require the imagination of other people to fill this void with 'content', and it better be free. Society is very ungrateful to most of the artists out there.

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

#68

Post by GotAnyMegadeth »

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…

This is brilliant. I've been thinking about making this for a while. If I add a band's email address, would that then be available to other people who listen to the same artist? How would you stop wrongly donating to artists with the same name?

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

#69

Post by egbert »

Socketubs wrote: post #64
egbert wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just subscribe!

Nice! Let me know what you think!

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

#70

Post by netcan »

I may be wrong, but is seems like a central part of the complaint is that newly released/recorded music isn't getting a big enough piece of the pie.

I'm not sure if this is just a trollish interpretation but it sounds like they are they asking for a return to the system where "this summer's new hits" get played relentlessly until everyone is sick of them and ready for "this year's christmas albums?"

I understand the argument that sales of new music funds new albums getting recorded while new sales of Hotel California don't promote any kind of artistic work. That's a purely producer side perspective though. For a listener, there is a lot of recorded music that exists. Very little of the best stuff was recorded this year (or in any given year).

Post reply on HN