The arguments over the value of music streaming to artists roll on, but one thing’s for certain: something definitely hit the fan for Spotify, Rdio and the rest this week. Mercury-nominated artist Jon Hopkins claimed this week that he was paid just £8 (around $13) for almost 100,000 streams on the service, and just hours before it was revealed that an independent record distributor in Britain — representing more than 200 small records labels — quit a range of streaming services, including Spotify, in a protest over 'negligible' royalty payments. (Read some of the other articles and discussion on the Spotify/streaming topic in the Coldplay forum now! [thanks Mimixxx])
We wrote at the end of October that Coldplay had decided not to release their album Mylo Xyloto onto Spotify and other streaming sites last month - and after this latest debacle involving Jon Hopkins, their decision appears to be fully justified. The debate went up a gear yesterday, when independent distributor and UK dance labe ST Holdings pulled its music catalogue from streaming sites. Then the complaints went viral with a blunt tweet from Jon Hopkins, musician and collaborator with Coldplay (on Viva la Vida), Brian Eno and respected Scottish indie performer King Creosote. His message was simple: "Got paid £8 for 90,000 plays. Fuck spotify. Radio 1 pay about £50 for each play."
That set in motion a stream of opinion from industry execs on Twitter. 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 and other famous Spotify snubbers include Tom Waits and Adele - whose album 21 is unavailable on the platform, although individual tracks can be streamed.
UK technology website CNET continue, saying that the 200+ indie dubstep, grime and electro labels represented by distribution network ST Holdings believe streaming services cut into other outlets for their music, as listeners choose to stream music instead of buy CDs or full-priced downloads. And although streaming is a promotional tool and earns the labels some cash, it's nowhere near enough to justify the loss of money from not selling a CD to each listener.
Unfortunately, Spotify's revenue deals are shrouded in mystery, with four major labels having a reportedly significant stake in the service. Ultimately, as music-lovers and technology fans we want to listen in the fastest, easiest way possible and pay for our music safe in the knowledge that it will go to the people who made the music -- but with the music industry in a transitional stage, it's hard to say if that's truly happening.
The comments on Music Week, however, have been mainly in support of Spotify, claiming that streaming music online leads to more sales in the shops through discovery of music:
Since I've started using Spotify about a year and a half ago I've been listening to more music as I've been discovering more music than I personally would otherwise. I subscirbe (£5/mth) and don't have a premium account so can't take my music with me when I'm on the go. As a consequence, I've been gladly spending more, month on month, buying digital versions of the songs that I discover and favorite on Spotify. It isn't very clear what deals Spotify have in place in order to be able to function legally - especially with the majors, and this has also been a matter for much debate recently. But as in most transactions that happen in the music industry, I'm willing to bet that they are the ones getting the lions share of Spotify's royalty payments in terms of percentages of each £1 that they pay out... *have you heard any of the majors, publisher or record company, complaining about this issue as yet?* ...and as usual it's the creators and the musicians that get the sh*tty end of the stick. Spotify is a great tool for me personally, and has changed my relationship with purchasing music, but until there's transparency about who is getting what percentage of the Spotify pie, the creators, artists and small record companies will continue to reach assumptions based on half truths, innuendos and incomplete data that's probably backed by the more dominant competitors in the digital domain. [Dwayne]
Since I've started using Spotify a little more than two years ago, I've spent more money on music than ever. I've visited more concerts and festivals than I ever have, even started buying merchandising just as a small gesture to support the artist. I buy about 5 albums a year of artists that I really, really like. The record labels need to understand that things change - use spotify or other music streaming services to promote music - cash is invested in experiences nowadays. Accept it and work with it. It's as if the record labels are in the Pigeon Post business and complain about Email. I'm sure Gold Panda wouldn't even sound familiar to many people without streaming services and they probably received more bookings than ever. See it as free promotion. [Rosanna Lopes]
Agree with Rosanna on this (above). I started using Spotify when it launched in the UK about 3 years ago and since then the amount I've spent on buying music has soared massively. I calculated that in 2010 alone I had spent just under £1k on content (music, videos etc) on iTunes... For labels to work out whether it's viable for them, they should surely need to work out what attributes users to buy music (eg, a stream on Spotify, for me, often leads to an iTunes purchase, but iTunes would take full credit for that and pay the label that way) whereas Spotify are not seen to be anywhere within that funnel. Labels need to be smarter on how they use digital holistically to drive sales. [Wayne B]
I think its important for labels to realise their business models are changing and embrace the change rather than moaning its not as good as the olden days. Instead running away from streaming services there should be more pressure put onto the likes of Spotify to increase user charges and pay more money to the artists and song writers. Although I haven't bought more music because of Spotify, I would pay upto 4x the monthly amount I do to have free music streamed to me if they increased their catalogue and I knew the artists were getting a better deal. And RE: Gold Panda, maybe its because they're just not very good... [Jon Collins]
Read also: Coldplay, blockbuster releases and the death of music streaming?
Tweet on 17th November from Jon Hopkins: "Fuck Spotify"
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.