Coldplay latest act to freeze out streaming services (Mylo Xyloto now on Spotify: 1st Feb 2012)

[busybeeburns]

 

Coldplay latest act to freeze out streaming services

 

Coldplay, one of the world's biggest music acts, has declined to offer songs from the company's new album "Mylo Xyloto," to streaming services such as Spotify, Rdio and Rhapsody, multiple sources told CNET.

 

EMI, the band's record label, acknowledged that Coldplay, known for such songs as "Yellow" and "Clocks," will not distribute through streaming services for "Mylo Xyloto," but did not detail the reasons for the decision. "We always work with our artists and management on a case by case basis to deliver the best outcome for each release," EMI said in a statement.

 

"Mylo Xyloto," however, has been streamed online. Coldplay, which has sold more than 50 million records since debuting in 1996, offered a new track from the album each day last week through iTunes. Coldplay representatives were not immediately available for comment.

 

EMI, the smallest of the four largest record companies, is a little embarrassed by the band's decision, according to the sources who spoke with CNET. All four of the major labels have thrown their support behind streaming services and it is one of the ways the industry has seen a modest amount of success at convincing fans to again pay for music after a decade-long era of rampant music piracy.

 

Losing a band with the marquee value of Coldplay is a blow to the streaming sector but it is only the most recent act to follow a no-streaming strategy amid concerns over payouts.

 

The management team of singer-actor Tom Waits has informed services such as Spotify, Rhapsody, and MOG, that it will not be distributing his new album, "Bad As Me," through them, according to industry sources. The album "21," from British songstress Adele, is one of the best selling of the year but the music can't be found on Spotify.

 

While Spotify offers millions of tracks, there are other bands as well missing its catalog. What's going on?

 

"We have strong support from the music industry," Spotify said in a statement. "We of course respect the decision of any artist who chooses not to have their music on Spotify for whatever reason. We do however hope that they will change their minds as we believe that the Spotify model is adding, and will continue to add, huge value to the music industry. Right now we have already convinced millions of consumers to pay for music again, and that they are generating real revenue for the music business."

 

Jaimee Steele, a spokeswoman for Rhapsody, said that artists must remember this is a new segment and that it will take time to produce the kind of sales volume as say iTunes and music downloads. But she also cautioned that streaming is where the public is going. And for artists, streaming is likely to be more profitable over the longer term.

 

"Artists are getting paid every time one of their tracks is being played," Steele said. "A download is sold and the revenue is distributed, but the artist doesn't see any more money from future plays of that song. With streaming, if someone plays a song a million times, the artist will earn money from that. Music acts could potentially make more money.

 

Coldplay's handlers are telling some of the services they won't stream because they believe "Mylo Xyloto" should be heard as one cohesive work, according to one industry insider with knowledge of the discussions. They don't want the album to be broken up into singles.

 

If that's true, how often have we heard this before? Acts such as AC/DC, Kid Rock, and Pink Floyd have all eschewed digital sales at one point and claimed that their music should be heard in its entirety.

 

That's fine, but forcing people to buy music that they may not want is taking us back to the days of the CD, when fans people required to plunk down $15 for one or two good songs. It was anti-consumer then and it is anti-consumer now.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20125886-261/coldplay-latest-act-to-freeze-out-streaming-services-scoop/

[Brent]

I don't know if this is a result of the band's wishes or those of the record company.

 

And there's more than 1-2 good songs on the album. Suck it, CNET.

[randomnames]

Either way, seems like the band agreed to it. What would be the possible advantages of doing this, get people to buy the actual album? In that case, it's likely EMI's doing.

[Telepian]

I hope MX will at least be on Pandora. For some reason they can get songs that other websites can't. They have music from The Beatles, when no other streaming site does. Maybe it will be the same for MX.

[fakfak]

It could be a creative decision like the article claims. We've seen the band pass up money making avenues (ie use in advertisements) before, in favor of some sort of artistic principle. I guess when you're already pulling in the dough they do, you don't have to scape up every last dime.

[TimeIsOnYourSide]

somewhat disappointing, but understandable.

[fakfak]

The more I read about them the more Spotify seems to have some really dodgy business practices. Add that to the fact that the spotify royalty is only .0016 cents per play, and I don't blame any artist for not working with them.

[busybeeburns]

 

Can't stream? Won't stream!

 

Coldplay have shaken their fans and their record label by becoming the latest big act to refuse to make tracks from their new album available for streaming on Spotify. Adam Sherwin reports on a revolt that is rocking the music industry

 

If the music industry agreed on one thing – and it rarely does – it was that the web streaming service Spotify was the future for a business ravaged by piracy. But Chris Martin has dealt a possibly fatal blow to that assumption after Coldplay refused to license their new album to Spotify, which now faces a revolt from some big artists.

 

EMI, Coldplay's record company, is said to be "embarrassed" after it's star act declined to allow Spotify's ten million users to listen to Mylo Xyloto, the band's new album. EMI, whose music division could be sold today in a $1.5bn deal by owners Citgroup, negotiated a deal to license its music to Spotify, in which it also owns a stake of under 2 per cent.

 

The Swedish-founded, UK-based Spotify has transformed the way music is listened to by fans since its 2008 launch. Spotify lets users stream a catalogue of 15 million songs to their computers and mobile phones through a monthly subscription or listen via an advertising-supported free service.

 

With CD sales suffering a 40 per cent collapse since 2001, Spotify was hailed as one of a handful of legal digital services which could lure fans from pirate sites and restore industry revenues.

 

But artists are in revolt after discovering they are receiving few royalties compared with CD sales, despite earning thousands of plays on Spotify. The service pays 0.085p per stream, which is split between the publisher and songwriters.

 

Coldplay declined to give a reason for their decision but it follows Adele's refusal to place her 21 album on Spotify. She has sold 10 million CDs and downloads this year, defying claims that albums could no longer sell in large volumes.

 

Tom Waits also joined the rebellion, declining to place his new Bad As Me album on Spotify, Rhapsody, Deezer and the MOG streaming services. Major catalogues such as those of The Beatles and Pink Floyd are also unavailable.

 

Jazz Summers, manager of The Verve and La Roux, said: "Everyone told La Roux they were listening to her album on Spotify. We looked at her royalties from thousands of plays and she basically got nothing. She said: 'Sod it, I'm taking it off. The royalties are barely enough to pay for a set of guitar strings'."

 

Spotify, co-founded by Daniel Ek, is valued at $1bn and has just launched a major link-up with Facebook, designed to allow the social network's 800 million users to share music.

 

With this increasing influence has come "arrogance," Mr Summers said. Spotify executives recently held a meeting with Britain's leading music managers and after making a presentation, refused to take questions. "That went down badly," said Mr Summers.

 

While snubbing Spotify, Coldplay gave rival iTunes exclusive plays of Mylo Xyloto and is promising those who make a £7.99 purchase on the Apple service a superior sound quality download. Amazon is selling the album, which has sold 150,000 copies so far this week in the UK, for a heavily-discounted £3.99. There have been suggestions that Coldplay want Mylo Xyloto to be listened to as a "cohesive whole" but it is for sale as "unbundled" tracks on iTunes.

 

EMI said: "We always work with our artists and management on a case-by- case basis to deliver the best outcome."

 

Company sources said the days of "controlling" where artists like Coldplay sell their music were over and that EMI worked with musicians and managers on collaborative release strategies.

 

Mark Mulligan, a digital music analyst, said: "Coldplay have made a business decision that they can generate more income and album sales through iTunes and Amazon. That is worth more to them than the widespread exposure to their music that Spotify offers. But few artists have the firepower to dictate terms to their record labels."

 

Like EMI, other major record labels – Warner, Sony and Universal – also purchased a stake in Spotify and that has become a source of conflict with their artists.

 

Mr Mulligan said: "Spotify works better for record labels than artists. They are stakeholders so they get a share of joint venture income from every stream, which doesn't have to be shared with their artists." Mr Summers accuses the record companies of "double dipping".

 

Mr Mulligan believes Spotify should be seen as a "promotional tool" by musicians, who will have to work harder to earn revenue through live performance and songwriting income.

 

Spotify retains the rights to stream Coldplay's earlier albums and is offering a new single from the new record. "We have strong support from the industry," said a spokesman. "We of course respect the decision of any artist who chooses not to have their music on Spotify.

 

"We do, however, hope they will change their minds as we believe the Spotify model is adding, and will continue to add, huge value to the music industry."

 

Despite snaring two million paying subscribers and recording a five-fold increase in revenues last year, Spotify's pre-tax losses rose to £26.5 million, partly due to increased royalties payments.

 

There are doubts about the long-term viability of its "freemium" model and Spotify has severely restricted the amount of free music listeners can receive.

 

The artist revolt could escalate, warns the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors. Patrick Rackow, Basca chairman, said: "It's a great time to be a music fan – there are more sources of music than ever before, most at a click of a button, but this does not mean the artist should feel pressured into being ubiquitously present on all services."

 

However, musicians could ultimately see the benefit to their bottom line.

 

A spokesman for Rhapsody said: "With streaming, if someone plays a song a million times, the artist will earn money from that. Music acts could potentially make more money."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/cant-stream-wont-stream-2376945.html

[fakfak]

After reading that one, now I really can't blame them.

[busybeeburns]

Coldplay and Spotify: What’s an Album Worth in 2011?[/

 

 

Coldplay and Spotify: What’s an Album Worth in 2011?

 

You’ve probably read recently about Coldplay’s decision to keep their new record Mylo Xyloto off insta-streaming sites like Spotify, Rdio, Rhapsody, etc. The move has led to much industry hand-wringing, and headlines like “Coldplay snub sounds alarm for streaming music.” It’s certainly an interesting choice on the part of the band and their management, and after the jump we wonder what might be behind it — and what a similar decision might mean for bands who aren’t quite the commercial juggernauts that Coldplay are.

 

The decision’s being billed as an artistic one, in that the band want people to hear the album as a whole, rather than streaming tracks piecemeal. This is as it may be (although it’s rather undermined by the fact that individual tracks are available on iTunes), but it’s also easy to understand from a financial standpoint: basically, Coldplay are going to sell a gazillion albums anyway, and if a million Spotify streams earned Lady Gaga all of $167, why would an artist in Coldplay’s position bother with potentially undermining album sales for such negligible revenue?

 

Coldplay are presumably confident that their fanbase is going buy the album on the strength of loyalty and the couple of singles they’ve heard. And that fanbase is probably large enough for the band not to care about the casual buyers who may not buy Mylo Xyloto without getting a chance to hear it first. No matter what happens, Coldplay are going to make money — their stature these days is such that they could probably choose to sell Mylo Xyloto only at selected sandwich shops on Tuesdays and still shift a shedload of copies.

 

The more interesting question is what a similar decision might mean for smaller artists — in other words, whether choosing to keep your music away from streaming sites might help or hinder your album sales figures. There are several factors at play here. There’s the argument that even if Spotify, etc. don’t make you a whole lot of cash, having your album available on such sites allows it to reach millions of people who would otherwise never have heard it, and that some of those people might buy your record. And, conversely, there’s the argument that having an album on such services actively discourages people from buying it, because, well, why would they? It’s streaming right there on their desktop, for free. Or as part of what they get for a $10-per-month subscription fee.

 

On the first point, even before the advent of Spotify, there seems to have been a shift over the past 10-15 years among consumers, an increasing reluctance to buy anything before you hear the whole thing first. In the past, it used to be that you’d hear a song on the radio, and if you liked it, you might go out and buy the single, assuming that the song in question was available in that format. Or, for a few dollars more, you might splash out and buy the album. Sure, you might be able to convince the clerk at the record shop to stick a copy on the CD player, but most likely, you were buying an album without having heard the majority of its content. And, without getting too misty-eyed for the past, that was at least part of the appeal — getting it home, unwrapping it and discovering the rest of the band’s songs, and (hopefully) liking them.

 

Those days are gone, of course. These days, if you like just one song, you either buy it for $1.69 from iTunes — or, as is becoming more likely with the increasing popularity of streaming sites, you just stream it. There’s certainly an argument to be made that this is good for consumers, and a triumph for the free market, and all that, in that consumers are no longer forced to buy a product they don’t necessarily want (an album) to get the product they do want (a song or two). After all, the entire concept of “the album” as it exists today is a fairly arbitrary one — it didn’t really exist before the 1950s, and it’s dictated by the historical capacity of formats that are essentially obsolete.

 

But in any case, not being able to hear Mylo Xyloto instantly, on demand, at the click of a mouse is an unusual thing these days, and it’s certainly not a feeling the music-buying public appears to enjoy. Do a search on Twitter for “Coldplay streaming” and you’ll find plenty of comments like “I just pirated Coldplay’s new album because it wasn’t on Spotify” or “No preview, no purchase” or “Hey Coldplay, hope you enjoy the loss of revenue from pirates.” It’s the last point that seems most egregious, the idea that people have some inalienable right to have an album right now, and if it’s not available how and when they want it, well, they’re just going to take it.

 

This is all indicative of how little value people place on “content” these days. If you’re like much of the public in 2011, if you do actually buy a physical album, you’re quite possibly buying it more as a physical item (a slab of vinyl with some nice artwork, perhaps) than you are investing in the music contained therein — which, after all, you could probably get for free. Which brings us onto the second point. If you can basically have all the music you could possibly want (except for Mylo Xyloto, of course) for $10 a month, how much is an album worth to you? A whole lot less than the $16.99 you used to pay, you might argue — unless, of course, that album isn’t part of your magic online jukebox, in which case its value manifests separately to that of all the music you can stream. This might make it worth more to you. It might make it worth less. But either way, it’s an interesting question that Coldplay are posing here.

 

Whether flat-fee services devalue music by treating it as subscription-based content is an argument that’s already been done to death, and one that isn’t going to end any time soon. Spotify responded to Coldplay’s decision with a press release proclaiming that they “have already convinced millions of consumers to pay for music again,” which may or may not be true (there’s certainly no data available on how many erstwhile pirates have changed their ways after seeing the subscription streaming light), but also rather conveniently avoids the question of what convincing millions of consumers to pay a whole lot less for music than they used to means for the industry.

 

There’s no clear answer to this, but we’re thinking that maybe Coldplay have decided that it’s worth losing Spotify revenue if it means that even a small proportion of people who would otherwise have streamed the album will go out and buy it. And maybe that might be something for other artists to think about too. If you’re a band or a small label, we’d be fascinated to know what you think.

 

http://flavorwire.com/226764/coldplay-and-spotify-whats-an-album-worth-in-2011

[ApproximatelyInfinite]

Unsure how I feel about this, really. Yeah, it sounds like Spotify gives a pretty raw deal in terms of royalties for streaming, but services like Spotify help to keep illegal piracy down (nothing could ever stop it, but it does help). I feel like if I were Coldplay, I'd rather get pennies for what's streamed rather than nothing at all for filesharing, but what do I know.

 

Also, I'm probably mistaken, but I SWEAR that MX was streamed on Spotify at least temporarily--I saw a bunch of friends listening to it on release day popping up all over my Facebook news feed! :confused:

[professa95]

Theres an obvious chink in thier argument...if the new album was meant to be heard in its entirty, why would they release singles and why would they do the iTunes stream? TO MAKE MONEY IT SEEMS

[ApproximatelyInfinite]

Singles are a given, but I totally agree about the iTunes stream in relation to the whole-album argument. I think this is purely about how they think it's best to make money, not about any ideal way to listen to new music, that's just a cover. It just...doesn't compute to me, is all--I feel like they're not thinking logically about what the average music listener's thought process is with regard to obtaining music. Just because a person can't listen to a record on Spotify etc. doesn't mean they're going to go straight to iTunes or Amazon or the record store next--they're going to find it on filesharing sites. I'd rather get 0.085p/stream than nothing.

[Mimixxx]

I thought this was completely 100% an EMI thing, I don't know what to think now.

 

They really don't need the money, at all, so what are they thinking?

[ApproximatelyInfinite]

Being persuaded by people who do need the money, I think.

 

I don't think the bandmembers are idiots or naive children at all, so this is why I'm frustrated by things like this. I mean, in the end, what do I know, I'm a 20-something with a liberal arts degree and a laptop...but I just feel like their decisions are mostly made by people who THINK they know best in terms of money, first and foremost, and who are very good at persuading the band. And I think most times, they've been proven at least mostly right, so maybe I should shut up, but in this case, it all seems silly to me. The numbers and stats speak volumes to me about the future of music and where the money still can be made from record sales.

[Mimixxx]

Yeah, the fact that a company who does need the money, desperately, have spoken out and said it was a bad idea speaks volumes though.

 

Would be interesting to find out if it was Adele or her record company that kept 21 off Spotify. Then again she's not as established as Coldplay.

 

The curious thing is though, that as far back as I can remember, whenever CP have been asked about illegal downloads and leaks and the such they've always been nonplussed and maintained that that's just the way things work these days. Which makes this decision even more baffling since Spotify is LEGAL.

 

Kudos to whoever is pulling their strings, they've managed to develop quite a pull over 5 extremely well educated, grown men.

[fakfak]

Unsure how I feel about this, really. Yeah, it sounds like Spotify gives a pretty raw deal in terms of royalties for streaming, but services like Spotify help to keep illegal piracy down (nothing could ever stop it, but it does help). I feel like if I were Coldplay, I'd rather get pennies for what's streamed rather than nothing at all for filesharing, but what do I know.

 

Also, I'm probably mistaken, but I SWEAR that MX was streamed on Spotify at least temporarily--I saw a bunch of friends listening to it on release day popping up all over my Facebook news feed! :confused:

 

 

IMHO it probably comes down to principal than anything else. Coldplay sold around a million records last week. They're not in a position where they need to grasp at every revenue stream, therefore can make decisions based on other principles. The bottom line is streaming revenues are so low that even the most streamed artists make essentially no money from the streaming (almost the same as illegal downloading), yet the ridiculously low streaming royalty allows companies like Spotify to act all righteous as though they're saving the music industry, when the reality is the difference between most bands' financial situations with and without streaming is negligible. Frankly, I can see how artists might be tempted to give a f**k you to spotify and other companies like it. Spotify's pitch to bands (and labels) earlier this year was that they NEEDED streaming services to be viable. Coldplay just proved that they don't (at least not bands on their commercial level.)

[fakfak]

Yeah, the fact that a company who does need the money, desperately, have spoken out and said it was a bad idea speaks volumes though.

 

Would be interesting to find out if it was Adele or her record company that kept 21 off Spotify. Then again she's not as established as Coldplay.

 

The curious thing is though, that as far back as I can remember, whenever CP have been asked about illegal downloads and leaks and the such they've always been nonplussed and maintained that that's just the way things work these days. Which makes this decision even more baffling since Spotify is LEGAL.

 

Kudos to whoever is pulling their strings, they've managed to develop quite a pull over 5 extremely well educated, grown men.

 

 

There's a difference between accepting the reality of a certain amount of illegal downloading, and essentially being insulted by having you work valued at so little. I suspect pride is a huge motivating factor in so many artists who otherwise embrace digital music having ill feelings about streaming services.

[ApproximatelyInfinite]

IMHO it probably comes down to principal than anything else. Coldplay sold around a million records last week. They're not in a position where they need to grasp at every revenue stream, therefore can make decisions based on other principles. The bottom line is streaming revenues are so low that even the most streamed artists make essentially no money from the streaming (almost the same as illegal downloading), yet the ridiculously low streaming royalty allows companies like Spotify to act all righteous as though they're saving the music industry, when the reality is the difference between most bands' financial situations with and without streaming is negligible. Frankly, I can see how artists might be tempted to give a f**k you to spotify and other companies like it. Spotify's pitch to bands (and labels) earlier this year was that they NEEDED streaming services to be viable. Coldplay just proved that they don't (at least not bands on their commercial level.)

 

This is a very good point, about them being in a position to decide things on principle alone. I guess I'm just unconvinced that their business team would willingly pass up an opportunity to make more money in any way, because they seem to me like they're quite eager to make as much as they can off the Coldplay cash cow. But like I say--I'm a 20-something with a laptop and a degree in media :lol:

 

I guess I'm also thinking of it in idealistic terms as well: though I'm not kept up at night by people pirating music, and though most bands (Coldplay included) make it clear they're not either, I do buy into the idea that services like Spotify have some impact on legal vs. illegal ways of consuming music and at least have the potential to start to shift music consumer practices over time. Besides the royalty aspect, the idea of listening to music through new and legal means appeals to me, and I would think it would appeal to artists as well, given the alternative. But at the end of the day, the alternative is probably always going to reign and they're probably aware of that.

[fakfak]

This is a very good point, about them being in a position to decide things on principle alone. I guess I'm just unconvinced that their business team would willingly pass up an opportunity to make more money in any way, because they seem to me like they're quite eager to make as much as they can off the Coldplay cash cow. But like I say--I'm a 20-something with a laptop and a degree in media :lol:

 

I guess I'm also thinking of it in idealistic terms as well: though I'm not kept up at night by people pirating music, and though most bands (Coldplay included) make it clear they're not either, I do buy into the idea that services like Spotify have some impact on legal vs. illegal ways of consuming music and at least have the potential to start to shift music consumer practices over time. Besides the royalty aspect, the idea of listening to music through new and legal means appeals to me, and I would think it would appeal to artists as well, given the alternative. But at the end of the day, the alternative is probably always going to reign and they're probably aware of that.

 

I think for whatever reason, someone in the band's camp just doesn't like these services. Looking at the MX promotion alone, digital channels have played a huge role (as they did for VLVODAAHF before it.), so it's obvious they're not averse to digital distribution itself. Personally, I don't really see why there's so much fuss over this as up until about a year ago, I subscribed to Rhapsody, and there were always major artists missing from their library (or with less than there full body of work available.) I don't know if it's still the case, but at that time Radiohead wasn't even available and they're widely regarded as the most fully embracing "big band" as far as digital music goes.

[ApproximatelyInfinite]

I just think that it's more of a big deal in the press etc now because streaming services are more relevant than they were a few years ago, especially with Spotify becoming available in the US this year. Six months ago, most Americans had no idea what that was, and now there's a huge number of American subscribers, which is a huge, huge chunk of the music market.

[fakfak]

Rhapsody's been around for almost 10 years and has a much bigger subscriber base than Spotify, so I'm not sure about bigger, but Spotify has certainly garnered more media attention than any other streaming service.

[ApproximatelyInfinite]

Yeah, with all the press about Spotify maybe being able to "save" the record industry (which I partly believe it has the potential to do), I think that's the difference. I don't know the stats on Rhapsody or anything, but I don't think they were heralded as the savior of anything, so I guess that's it :P

[Mimixxx]

Sorry to bump this but Jon Hopkins just tweeted this which, I think is relevant here:

 

Jon_Hopkins Got paid £8 for 90,000 plays. Fuck spotify.

[Mimixxx]

Mercury nominee says 'f*ck Spotify'; UK industry voices opinion

 

Forget EMI and Google: the news item that has most hit the UK industry's nerve this week appears to be the removal of music from Spotify - which has gone nuclear since Mercury-nominated artist Jon Hopkins claimed this afternoon that he was paid under £10 for almost 100,000 streams on the service.

 

The debate went up a gear yesterday, when independent distributor ST Holdings pulled its music catalogue from streaming sites.

 

Hopkins turned the air blue on Twitter today, reporting: "Got paid £8 for 90,000 plays. Fuck spotify."

 

He later added: "Radio 1 pay about £50 for each play."

 

That set in motion a stream of opinion from industry execs to Music Week's @MusicWeekNews account.

 

Radio presenter Stuart Miller wrote: "This Spotify thing is a total joke. I make dance music. If Radio 1 plays like 6 mins I get £120 or around that from PRS."

 

Universal product manager Steve Marsh came out in Spotify's defence, commenting: "How much did they get paid from pirated music...would that be £0? Spotify is reducing the amount of pirated music."

 

Music publishing house Sentric also stuck up for the beleagured platform. They said of Hopkins: "Yes, he gets £120 for a six minute play on Radio 1; because 8 million people are listening to it... If he received 8 million streams on Spotify he'd be earning more than £120 in royalties... Spotify is good for artists & the music industry. Can we all just get along with our lives and embrace it please?"

 

Universal's Jamie Vaide said: "Streaming can never replace sales as a major income source - but many people are stealing, not buying... I think the killer point is artists get SOMETHING from @Spotify whereas they get NOTHING from illegal downloading."

 

Others were less forgiving. The BBC's Wales Music account Tweeted: "Didn't Madonna get about 3s 6d for millions of plays? Streaming surely can't pay long term for artists..."

 

Record producer Dom Morely called Spotify "pointless", while UK pop songwriting collective The House of Mammoth said: "Spotify = this generation's mix tapes."

 

Coldplay decided not to release their album Mylo Xyloto onto Spotify and other streaming sites last month.

 

Other famous Spotify snubbers include Tom Waits and Adele - whose album 21 is unavailable on the platform, although individual tracks can be streamed.

 

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storycode=1047525