Someone once said that music is the only thing that you consume before purchasing.
Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
81–90 of 91 posts
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Woah. TIL the popular definition of swag changed in 2010. Damn, now I feel old and out of touch :(
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ah, didn't know that. Guessing they don't allow CD burning, but I imagine that's a dwindling use case.
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#84Why can't Spotify follow the old VHS/Cinema model? If you want it today, you pay the premium. If you want to rent, you have to wait a bit longer.
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#85I 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.…
Indeed - they could definitely do that.
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you take a look at the way gittip does this ? You basically donate to a twitter handle and its owner can 'claim' the account whenever they want. No money is actually transferred until the account is claimed. I don't know if it can be applied to artists/bands though. I was also wondering: is there no transfer fees with paypal ? Don't they make small amounts transfer useless ? And one last thing: is it not weird fo…
Good points! 'the way gittip does this': I naively assumed Gittip was sitting on the money until it was claimed, but charging the moment its claimed is probably better. I'll have to look into it! 'transfer fees with paypal': Yes and yes. I'm currently spending about 8-10 dollars a week divided over 5 artists. So the slice Paypal gets is significant but bearable. This of course isn't ideal and I've been thinking about…
Hey!
I think you have a phenomenal idea.
I worked in the bitcoin space for a while (cofounded an exchange), and this was a proposal that often came up. so awesome to see someone actually building it. Could I convince you to send me an email: Jordanbirn at gmail.com ?
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#87Could someone throw up a pie chart showing exactly how much of your $10 actually goes to an artist? I'm guessing you're going to need to make it pretty large for it to be even visible. Good on them.
This is from 2010 and does not directly answer your question, but maybe you'll find it interesting: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music...
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#88'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 generall…
Well then maybe the way the market is only certain people can get paid that much (just like a random developer becoming the next Bill Gates). Also I said artist not musician, Bieber got to where he's at not for being a talented musician but for being an artist (attractive, catchy, etc).
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#89This is only for Thom Yorke solo tunes, Atoms for Peace music from Thom and Nigel, and Nigel's side project Ultraista. The two make the argument that new music is hurt in the Spotify revenue equation. With the large stake of Spotify that is owned by the Majors and other large corporate entities such as Coca-Cola, it would be interesting if the 'independent labels' were to come out with some sort of streaming service…
> They have to keep commodifying things to keep the share price up, but in doing so they have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions.
This strikes me as typical Luddite hysteria. Of course they still have worth, the commodified version is the same as the original, and people are getting the same thing they got when buying a cd. The barrier is just drastically lowered.
I do agree on the commodification of human relationships, it's a fairly disgusting trend that I hope exhausts itself in the current social network form soon.
Re: Radiohead's Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich Are Removing Their Music from Spotify
#90Technology giveth, technology.. I think a great analogy is/was the porn industry. Every time a new technology made it big, the industry was turned upside down. Ferraris bought by new guys. Ferraris repossessed for others. Home VCRs created an industry that dwarfed adult cinemas. Selling DVDs over the internet was even better until streaming/download video killed that model. The porn industry collapsed and immediately…
> No one takes an indignant pornographer seriously so the industry doesn't spend much energy being indignant. It just grows and shrinks as it can or has to.
If only indignant moralistic artists were appropriately looked at as foolish. We live in a capitalist world, where the things sold are only limited by what they can give the customer. The artist loses the second they allow their music to be stored in a big, copy able file, and lose all value. Convenience is by far what drives my listening habits, so if you aren't on spotify, to me, might as well not exist (unless I pirate it.)