Tidal bullshit...

samzadgan

Heartfeltdawn said:

Sad, lost, and out of touch = describing women pop stars as whores. 

unfortnately you misread...I wrote some women pop star feel appropriate to look like whores...
1. i didnt say all women pop stars were whores
2. i didnt describe them as whores...i said look like, as in, dress like.

Heartfeltdawn

1. Yes, I know you didn't say 'all women pop stars were whores'. 

2. That's why I didn't write 'describing all women pop stars as whores'. I said 'describing women pop stars as whores'. Which is what you did. 

And I'll stop. No point arguing. So sorry. Carry on. 

stickyfiddle

I don't really care but unless their strapline should have been:

"We're all minted, but really like music and want to stick up for young artists, so we'll take half the money per play as new bands will get"

Did the message get lost, or is it just not on their radar at all? I suspect I know the answer.

Drew_TNBD

Heartfeltdawn said:

I doubt you would say Bill Wyman dresses like a whore. 

Bill Wyman dresses like a cunt.

Cirrus

I want you to show me where I can find a whore dressed in a MEAT SUIT.

bobblehat

I can see the music industry ending up in the same mess that movie streaming is in . We will have 3 or 4 companies with offering different studios and none worth paying regularly for!

I currently pay for Spotify and think its a fantastic service. They currently have around 15 milion paying subscribers and still   

dont make a profit so I cant see them paying artists any more than they currently do for some time. As for tidal paying artists more I think they are probably deluded or just simply lying. It will no dont be sold soon when they realise how much money they are going to lose! (probably to Apple).

lloyd

Fretwired;578013" said:

I'm pleased as I can now browse through Spotify knowing I won't come across any tracks by Kane West and co. That pleases me ... I like streaming services and I think Spotify offers a great service. If I find music I really like then I buy the CD. I can't see why people complain about streaming - it's like a radio station where you can choose the music.

I'm the same, use it to find good stuff, buy the good stuff. It's good for on the move listening without clogging up your phones memory too...

Heartfeltdawn

bobblehat said:

I currently pay for Spotify and think its a fantastic service. They currently have around 15 milion paying subscribers and still   

dont make a profit so I cant see them paying artists any more than they currently do for some time. As for tidal paying artists more I think they are probably deluded or just simply lying. It will no dont be sold soon when they realise how much money they are going to lose! (probably to Apple).

That line comes up a lot: they don't make a profit. 

http://recode.net/2014/11/25/spotify-is-a-booming-billion-dollar-business/

Making a profit here isn't everything when you have to grow rapidly. Increasing the valuation, as Spotify will surely float one day in the future, is key. I doubt that the lack of Spotify profit means that Daniel Ek is sleeping rough at night after a trip out to the soup kitchen. 

Damon Krukowski's article sums up the dilemma for the musician very well:

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

bobblehat said:

I currently pay for Spotify and think its a fantastic service. They currently have around 15 milion paying subscribers and still   

dont make a profit so I cant see them paying artists any more than they currently do for some time. As for tidal paying artists more I think they are probably deluded or just simply lying. It will no dont be sold soon when they realise how much money they are going to lose! (probably to Apple).

That line comes up a lot: they don't make a profit. 

http://recode.net/2014/11/25/spotify-is-a-booming-billion-dollar-business/

Making a profit here isn't everything when you have to grow rapidly. Increasing the valuation, as Spotify will surely float one day in the future, is key. I doubt that the lack of Spotify profit means that Daniel Ek is sleeping rough at night after a trip out to the soup kitchen. 

Damon Krukowski's article sums up the dilemma for the musician very well:

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

you can "not make a profit", yet pay yourself £1m salary, since profit is after salaries and expenses are paid

I know someone with a lot of stuff on spotify, he got around $20 for 6 months from cdbaby, mostly from spotify

Not a way to earn a living I think. No data on how many plays this is from though

So - reflecting on that, selling 2 CDs as a busker would earn you more

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

you can "not make a profit", yet pay yourself £1m salary, since profit is after salaries and expenses are paid

I know someone with a lot of stuff on spotify, he got around $20 for 6 months from cdbaby, mostly from spotify

Not a way to earn a living I think. No data on how many plays this is from though

So - reflecting on that, selling 2 CDs as a busker would earn you more

Of course. The point I was making is that there's this idea that 'not making a profit' means hardship and toil. When your average small business owner doesn't make a profit, that's when people shit themselves about bailiffs and going under. When it's a huge company like Spotify, a company that has a record of growth and would undoubtedly raise a lot through flotation, then 'It doesn't make a profit' holds no weight. After all, Ek is worth at least $300 million, not bad for a man whose company hasn't made a profit. 

Heartfeltdawn

A musician writes.

http://thetrichordist.com/

I love me some David Lowery. 

http://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/

bobblehat

ToneControl said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

bobblehat said:

I currently pay for Spotify and think its a fantastic service. They currently have around 15 milion paying subscribers and still   

dont make a profit so I cant see them paying artists any more than they currently do for some time. As for tidal paying artists more I think they are probably deluded or just simply lying. It will no dont be sold soon when they realise how much money they are going to lose! (probably to Apple).

That line comes up a lot: they don't make a profit. 

http://recode.net/2014/11/25/spotify-is-a-booming-billion-dollar-business/

Making a profit here isn't everything when you have to grow rapidly. Increasing the valuation, as Spotify will surely float one day in the future, is key. I doubt that the lack of Spotify profit means that Daniel Ek is sleeping rough at night after a trip out to the soup kitchen. 

Damon Krukowski's article sums up the dilemma for the musician very well:

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

you can "not make a profit", yet pay yourself £1m salary, since profit is after salaries and expenses are paid

I know someone with a lot of stuff on spotify, he got around $20 for 6 months from cdbaby, mostly from spotify

Not a way to earn a living I think. No data on how many plays this is from though

So - reflecting on that, selling 2 CDs as a busker would earn you more

I'm not sugesting for one minute that Daniel Ek doesnt have a few million in the bank. Theres obviuosy a good reason why spotify has set the rates that it pays musicians and I dont think its greed on their part. I would think if they paid anymore at this stage then the business model would simply not work. A £10 subscription doesn't stretch very far when divided by the number of plays or downloads you make each month. 

sinbaadi

I think this service looks a bit crap, but I still don't understand why spotify plays are worth so little compared with YouTube plays.

bobblehat

sinbaadi said:

I think this service looks a bit crap, but I still don't understand why spotify plays are worth so little compared with YouTube plays.

probably because of the revenue from adverts

RocknRollDave

When I first saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be about the poor quality of sewage-polluted waters around the British coast.

sinbaadi

bobblehat;579556" said:

sinbaadi said:
y
I think this service looks a bit crap, but I still don't understand why spotify plays are worth so little compared with YouTube plays.





probably because of the revenue from adverts

Which everyone blocks on YouTube, don't they?
I suppose my question really is, why is ad revenue so much greater on YouTube?

BigMonka

The Metro this morning has a little piece about Tidal. It says that the subscription will start at £7/month (for the lower quality streaming), which is less than Spotify. It also says they've already got 20million songs compared to Spotify's 25million, so not far off there either (unless they're all just slightly different remixes of JayZ songs!)

Dalefty

I have to say I find this quite funny, as every big name musician I have ever worked with over the last five to ten years has told me to just to download copies of their work from the naughty sites if they don't happen to have hard copies on them or readily available or close to hand, yet when you put them in front of a microphone, they all piss and moan about illegal downloads and how youtubre and what not pay them nothing..... yet they all embrace it, even Metallica, the band that brought down Napster has it's own youtube channel long before youtube had adverts, and free streams a lot of their material over numerious mediums nowadays.

DaLefty

Heartfeltdawn

bobblehat said:

I'm not sugesting for one minute that Daniel Ek doesnt have a few million in the bank. Theres obviuosy a good reason why spotify has set the rates that it pays musicians and I dont think its greed on their part. I would think if they paid anymore at this stage then the business model would simply not work. A £10 subscription doesn't stretch very far when divided by the number of plays or downloads you make each month. 

You don't think it's greed? I do. Daniel Ek was CEO of uTorrent, a company that made its money through selling advertising space and who attracted users with piracy (and all the bullshit defenders will say about torrenting not being about piracy are talking arse). So he was an active component in helping to fuck up both musicians and record labels through piracy. He then goes back, starts up Spotify, gets a deal with several major labels who take a share in this business, and says to musicians 'Hey, piracy is bad and you get nothing. I'll offer you close to fuck all which is still more than piracy'. Someone is making money. Presumably he does. His company doesn't and a lot of musicians don't. 

You're right though, they can't afford to give more cash to musicians with their business model as it is because the business model is one that relies on exploiting the creators of the content they stream. If the model were a good one, don't you think someone would have done it with movies or television properly rather than the restricted content Netflix model?

As a guy who grew up in the 1990s, I remember the bitching about major labels in the past. Albini's essay, Nirvana hating corporate rock, all of that. I thought it was bullshit griping back then and it looks even more like bullshit griping now. Those major labels now with their advances and their willing in some cases to take risks on bands look like an oasis of wonder compared to the streaming services. 

bobblehat said:

probably because of the revenue from adverts

...yep, and it's the ad revenue that is Spotify's problem now. It's not growing at a fast enough rate for some analysts. 

Dalefty said:

I have to say I find this quite funny, as every big name musician I have ever worked with over the last five to ten years has told me to just to download copies of their work from the naughty sites if they don't happen to have hard copies on them or readily available or close to hand, yet when you put them in front of a microphone, they all piss and moan about illegal downloads and how youtubre and what not pay them nothing..... yet they all embrace it, even Metallica, the band that brought down Napster has it's own youtube channel long before youtube had adverts, and free streams a lot of their material over numerious mediums nowadays.

DaLefty

What big name musicians have you worked with?

The smaller professional musicians I know, the ones who teach an instrument and do corporate gigs, all say that the 'music is free' mentality means they've all been asked if they'd do things like restaurant and dinner gigs for free by people who say 'It would get you exposure and coverage for free'. 

Heartfeltdawn

In case there are those who think I am anti-streaming, I am not. It's clearly the new way to go and the environmentalist in me thinks it's better than having a whole new load of plastic CD trays and broken discs in landfills in the future. But the bottom line is that the creators of content need to be rewarded properly.