Taylor Swift Leading Country Exodus from Spotify
As said by Saving Country Music in the review for Taylor Swift’s new 1989 album, “It is the most relevant, most important album released in country music in the entirety of 2014, let alone in music overall…even though it’s not country….Thinking otherwise is vanity, and ill-informed.” Now we are seeing this play out as a host of country artists have pulled their newest albums from Spotify, following Taylor Swift’s lead of leaving the streaming giant, and making country music the genre leading the Spotify exodus.
Taylor Swift’s 1989 was never released to Spotify, and this is being given credit by many in the industry for Swift putting together the best sales week for any album since 2002—in a rapidly-depreciating sales environment mind you. Now her former country music bunk mates are following suit.
On Monday, Jason Aldean pulled his latest record Old Boots, New Dirt from Spotify—a big loss for the company from one of country’s biggest stars, and one who has set streaming records. Old Boots, New Dirt set a new record for best-ever debut week for a country album with more than 3.04 million streams. Aldean and his label have yet to speak publicly about the decision.
Subsequently, Brantley Gilbert, whose 2014 release Just As I Am has been receiving surprising sales numbers, has also been pulled from Spotify. All that remains on the streaming service is his single “Bottom’s Up.” Gilbert shares the same label as Taylor Swift. They both operate under Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Label Group.
And another Big Machine artist, Justin Moore, has also scrapped his latest album, 2013’s Off The Beaten Path from Spotify. This has put both Spotify, country music fans, and the entire industry on watch to see what country artist may be next to diss the music streamer, while there has yet to be any major names from the pop or rock worlds make similar moves.
It also should be pointed out that another big release, Garth Brooks’ Man Against Machine will not be making it to Spotify, though we’ve known for a while the superstar would be going his own route with GhostTunes. Nonetheless, it is another landmark release from a country artist that won’t be featured in the service. As country music continues to dominate the overall music marketplace, these developments can’t be good for Spotify.
One wonders however what material gain Jason Aldean, Brantley Gilbert, and Justin Moore expect to land by pulling their albums from Spotify now. Will this move stimulate higher physical and download sales like it did for Taylor Swift? That hardly seems likely, since most core country fans will have already either purchased the album, or streamed it on Spotify previously.
Something else going under-reported about the Spotify exodus is that it is not happening to music streaming overall. For example, Taylor Swift’s 1989, and all the other country albums pulled from Spotify still remain on the streaming service offered by Beats. The issue is not necessarily streaming in general, but with Spotify specifically, whose free option and minimal payouts was causing controversy way before the Taylor Swift decision.
Taylor Swift explained to Yahoo why she decided to pull her music from Spotify.
all I can say is that music is changing so quickly, and the landscape of the music industry itself is changing so quickly, that everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment. And I’m not willing to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music. And I just don’t agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free. I wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal this summer that basically portrayed my views on this. I try to stay really open-minded about things, because I do think it’s important to be a part of progress. But I think it’s really still up for debate whether this is actual progress, or whether this is taking the word “music” out of the music industry. Also, a lot of people were suggesting to me that I try putting new music on Spotify with “Shake It Off,” and so I was open-minded about it. I thought, “I will try this; I’ll see how it feels.” It didn’t feel right to me. I felt like I was saying to my fans, “If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it, and it’s theirs now and they don’t have to pay for it.” I didn’t like the perception that it was putting forth. And so I decided to change the way I was doing things.
Spotify responded to Taylor Swift, saying they have paid out over $2 billion dollars to music makers.
“Taylor Swift is absolutely right: music is art, art has real value, and artists deserve to be paid for it,” says Spotify CEO Daniel Ek. “So all the talk swirling around lately about how Spotify is making money on the backs of artists upsets me big time…We’re paying an enormous amount of money to labels and publishers for distribution to artists and songwriters, and significantly more than any other streaming service.”
Spotify also says that without their service, Piracy would become an issue again. “Here’s the overwhelming, undeniable, inescapable bottom line: the vast majority of music listening is unpaid. If we want to drive people to pay for music, we have to compete with free to get their attention in the first place.”
However Taylor Swift’s rebuttal has been that there needs to be an overhaul of the cultural mindset revolving around music. When her album 1989 leaked online, her fans confronted people downloading the album illegally, asking why they would want to steal someone’s creative work. Judging from the sales of 1989, the pirated leaks did little to hurt overall sales, though this might not be the case for other artists.
Meanwhile the Spotify watch is up for country music and beyond. Who will be next to vacate the streaming service, and are we seeing a brand new era emerge in how music is bought and sold?
November 11, 2014 @ 12:41 pm
Am I the only one still buying cds?
November 11, 2014 @ 1:58 pm
nope. i’m right there with you. i’ve got around 2,500 cds (and a few hundred vinyl albums) and i pile on to my collection constantly. i love physical product and really enjoy hunting stuff down in record stores and online.
November 12, 2014 @ 11:02 am
I am with both of you on this one.
I have an outlandish number of CDs.
I only download when the cost of a rare or old CD is prohibitive.
I spend too much money on CDs and books – I have more books than some small town libraries and I am trying to read them all.
I don’t own a Kindle.
Viva la CD.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:13 pm
Nope. I’m a youngster and I hate streaming and digital downloads for the most part. Sometimes the latter is more financially rewarding in the independent scene (as a lot of hard copies of indie country albums are over $15, with the downloads about $9). However, for the most part I want to hold the music in my hand and have uncompressed audio to enjoy. Also, the market for physical product is much, MUCH more susceptible to supply and demand, thus you’ll find many CDs at a store for $5 that are still full price online. Screw that.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:15 pm
I still buy CDs. I don’t have anything close to 2500, but I enjoy collecting them. If I really like an artist, I will collect their entire discography (i.e. Billy Joel, George Strait, Alan Jackson). If they produce a lot of filler, I will use Spotify to help me decide. I just bought the New Basement Tapes today and the deluxe version of George Strait’s final concert (that’s a different rant for another time)
November 11, 2014 @ 2:56 pm
I’ll buy a CD once in a while, but I do purchase my music, usually through Amazon. I spend so much time on my computer with work that it makes more sense for me. I am not a huge fan of the streaming services, although Pandora is built into my TV and car stereo, so I use it once in a while. Not enough to make a difference, although I have discovered new artists and subsequently purchased their music.
November 11, 2014 @ 6:43 pm
No, you are not. I buy CD’s i really like, but it is still a fact, that some people, take me as a “poor student” for example, can’t buy every album they want to listen to.
This gets even more difficult when you come from Europe (yes, we have country-fans here too^^) because in this case, you can’t get a hand on every CD you like to get or have to pay ridiculos amounts for shipping. And you don’t even have country radio-stations to comfort you over this fact,
Addiotionally you can listen into a new album for a few times, even if you don’t like it enough for buying it and you can listen to you favorite songs on your mobile devices more easy. So let’s face it – it’s convenient and economical.
November 13, 2014 @ 4:59 pm
You kidding, CDs are my life. I’ll admit I use itunes but I have a ton of CDs. I’m even forming a band and I said to myself CDs will be the only way to buy our music. Screw you spotify and iTunes!
November 11, 2014 @ 1:06 pm
I noticed that Swift is going to block Garth from #1 next week. She’s predicted to do 225k (early predictions, it could rise, and most probably will) and his prediction is 140k.
November 11, 2014 @ 1:12 pm
That is not factoring in digital sales on ghosttunes/garths website. But yeah, it’s very possible he doesn’t get #1. Haven’t picked it up myself, but sounds like it’s a mixed bag of songs, couple country, couple rock/pop, couple RnB kind of songs.
Definitely not an album appealing to classic country die-hards. But I don’t think they ever wanted to like a garth album anyway.
November 11, 2014 @ 1:35 pm
Having listened to it, I’d say that’s fairly accurate. There are a couple tracks that sound like classic Garth, one solid western swing tune and a few that venture off into other things. Whether a listener will like that album pretty much comes down to whether or not you’re already a Garth fan. I am, so I enjoy it but I can understand why some won’t.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:54 pm
One wonders what might have happened if Garth’s comeback had gone according to plan. I think the cancelled concerts, falling down onstage and particularly the lack of a number 1 or even top 10 single from the new album have taken their toll. The latter is probably most important; a lot of people seem to be ignorant of the fact that Garth is even back working on new music. A big single would have gone a long way to correct that.
November 13, 2014 @ 6:18 pm
I don’t think it would have mattered if Garth had released the greatest single known to mankind with the greatest marketing ‘machine’ ( sorry Garth) on the planet peddling his CD or if he $#@& diamonds from his bum for anyone buying a concert ticket . He’s 52 , balding , paunchy , still has that HUGE ego and he DOES NOT APPEAL TO 17 YEAR OLD GIRLS the way Luke and his lot do . Garth is preaching to the choir at this point and I doubt that he’s brought too many new lambs into the fold no matter how good his record is ( and it is pretty damned good , in my opinion ) . And yes , I’m aware that’s last line was a mixed metaphor . Young folk WATCH music …they don’t really LISTEN to music .
November 11, 2014 @ 1:27 pm
There are so many problems with all this, it’s ridiculous…
I’m glad to see these people pulling their music from Spotify, and hope MANY more follow. Spotify seemed unconcerned when I told them I was pulling MY music, but these guys can make an impact!
I can’t speak for what Aldean, Moore, etc expect to gain from pulling their records that have already run their major course, but the real gain is in the statement it makes. If it helps to force a change that gets musicians paid better – the monetary gains will be in the future albums.
As a music LISTENER, I love streaming. I use Rhapsody. It costs me $9.99 a month to listen to pretty much anything I want. That’s ridiculous. It should be at least 10 times that much. Make it $99.99. Rhapsody can keep a whole ten bucks and kick the rest down to the musicians – ME! I listen to no less than one new album every night. I could never afford to do that without streaming – nor could I afford the warehouse to store all the CDs in. I’m thankful for streaming, but am not looking to screw over musicians for it.
Spotify has nothing to say in the matter, really. They don’t know anything about music, they don’t care about music – they have no interest in music whatsoever outside of the money it can generate them. These are computer people, not music people. This is all 1s, 0s, and $s to them. While they struggle to build enough hype to be able to run an IPO and cash out, they probably have to look up music terms in “Music for Dummies” just to be able to make statements to the subject. While it’s obvious that streaming is here to stay, I’d love to see Spotify tank. Then the other services can learn from their greedy-ass demise and build something that works, from the lessons.
The whole “gotta give it free to compete with the illegal free” crap is…shit. So lemme get this straight. These are my choices, right: Either people steal my music, making me no money, OR, You give my music away, making me no money, BUT, you make money on advertising. Really!?!! FU Spotify!
People pay hundreds of dollars a month to watch sports re-runs with Kardashian butts prancing through the picture-in-picture. People pay hundreds of dollars a month to have a beer after work…in addition to the hundreds of dollars per month they spend on their weird-ass “coffee” drinks in the morning. All we have to do is tell people, “You want music – you’re going to pay a hundred bucks a month for it.” They’ll bitch and moan about for a few weeks, maybe some will hold out for months, then they’ll just do it – because it will just be standard.
I’m a broke-ass musician. I can’t afford a hundred bucks a month, but it doesn’t matter. I also can’t afford my rent, electricity, guitar strings, and the million other things I manage to pay every month – but it gets done somehow. Music is important enough that I would skip every other meal if I had to, to pay for it.
Younger kids would just grow up knowing that’s a bill you pay all your life – like manicures and bouffant fluffing – it’ll be nothing to them. The ones who REALLY can’t afford it, will steal it. Big deal. I’d rather have my music stolen from little Suzy down the block, than from Spotify. The dollar amount of music stolen every year is huge, and they LOVE to tell you that. The part they don’t like to tell you is that the PERCENTAGE of music stolen is really small.
So, I know this is wishful thinking, but: R.I.P. Spotify.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:22 pm
Charging people $100 a month would completely kill the streaming industry. Nobody except the wealthy and the extremely music hungry would be willing to pay that much.
November 12, 2014 @ 11:02 am
Probably true but what about when there was no streaming or web services and people had to buy actual CDs or records. They seemed to be able to afford it then. The difference I think is that music more more appreciated back then because you couldn’t just have it all at once. You had to be selective in your choices and you had to really care for the physical product or it was gone or broken. When you can just hit play over and over you care less about the actual product.
I think having it all RIGHT THERE is the problem. It creates a “me” mentality, it’s about me and what I want right now.
I don’t think charging $100 is going to help, Spotify would take $90 and kick back 10. Even though $100 is pretty cheap for almost every song ever recorded ever! I spent 100x on CDs alone and don’t even have 1/100th of what’s on Spotify, which BTW I do not use. I do not want any more middle men in my music than I have to have.
November 12, 2014 @ 5:12 am
these guys can make an impact!
Yup. When I saw this, I thought, Hey, those artists are finally doing something good for music!
I will admit my reasoning for not doing Spotify is a bit more selfish — I like to own the music instead of just rent it. Streaming it from the cloud makes it more ephemeral and impersonal, IMO. There is also the fact that it puts more money in the artists’ pockets, of course. And if Aldean and the rest can make that happen with this, then bully for them.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:07 pm
Here’s my take
1. I am a paid Spotify subscriber. I listen to it every day at work. It is a way for me to listen to music without the obvious hassle of uploading my music to my iPod (side note: I don’t own a particularly useful computer)
2. Spotify is a way for me to gauge whether or not I like an album.
3. I still buy albums. Music is one of the biggest aspects of my life and I still prefer to pop a CD in my car radio and listen to it cover to cover on the ride home.
4. Contrary to Scott Borchetta’s comments earlier this week, I am not embarrassed that I buy CDs. I didn’t realize that was a thing.
5. These artists pulling their music from Spotify can thank Spotify for a big portion of their fan base (a compensation that is often overlooked.)
6. Spotify compensation is actually pretty good for superstars like Taylor swift. The amount of plays that her music got was huge and while she may have only made about .0008 per listen (if I remember correctly), over million of times, that number adds up. This info can be found in a basic google search for “spotify compensation.
7. I don’t work for Spotify. I just enjoy having a shitload of music at my fingertips
8. Finally, I don’t believe Spotify is to blame for the lack of people buying CDs these days. That was a foregone conclusion when software like LimeWire came out and people could get music for free.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:14 pm
#5 and #8 especially. Streaming has been with us a while now, CD’s are still great but even a diehard record/cassette guy like me has 13,000 songs on my iPod. Just look how the iPod is considered to be old hat, Apple isn’t making any more of them! So the CD ship has sailed.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:29 pm
(1 – 3) That’s great – but makes up a really small amount of people. Most people now, and in the future almost all people will be NOT doing that.
(4) Yea – I thought that was one of the most ridiculous things to ever come out of his mouth – and there’s been plenty of dumb crap to come out of his mouth…
(5) As told by the people with a stake in it – it’s a huge amount. In fact, according to them, Swift would only have like 4 fans if not for Spotify… In reality – it’s 99% word of mouth. People get “discovered” on Spotify after their friends say “hey go listen to this on Spotify”. In reality Spotify is “responsible” for very little fan base. Some – sure – but not enough to be part of the real conversation.
(6) If by “pretty good compensation”, you mean $800 for every million people who listen, then sure…I guess… I didn’t need google to calculate that either! 😀
(7) Me too! I’d just like to see artists get paid for it. And by “paid” I don’t mean $800 for every million listens.
(8) No. The lack of CD sales is no different than when cassettes died, and records before, and reel-to-reel, and tin foil recordings. It’s just a natural progression that comes with technology. The only thing to blame is time.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:46 pm
It was actually .006. I got the figure wrong (as I figured I might. Didn’t feel like going back to the article, so it’s 6000 for every million. Perhaps it’s not huge, but again, for someone like taylor swift who gets several million listens per month, it certainly can be. It sucks for the indies, but as I previously mentioned, Spotify can be a vehicle for their being discovered by the general populace. Many of the artists that I support now by buying their albums and attending their concerts, I discovered through Spotify
November 11, 2014 @ 4:08 pm
THAT is only if it’s a stream by a PAID member.
Here’s my last 5 Spotify (real data, not google rounded data) streams for one of my albums:
$0.00081943
$0.00040180
$0.00051138
$0.00859855
$0.00190645
The 4th one is obviously from a paid member – only 2 zeros before the big bucks kick in, rather than 3.
The paid members aren’t why Swift pulled her music – the free members are…and they make up the majority – last I looked anyway.
November 11, 2014 @ 4:19 pm
You keep throwing these numbers out, but if I was a musician, I’d most likely care only about the final number, not the individual numbers from each track. According to the CEO ( yeah, I know, he could be skewing the numbers, don’t jump down my throat about it, payouts for a “top artist are on track to exceed 6M a year”. That’s a pretty good number of you ask me.
November 11, 2014 @ 4:15 pm
I should also add that my albums stream on many streaming services – too many to keep track of, but 30 maybe? And Spotify and LastFM are the ONLY ones who pay hundredths of a cent for streams. Sure, the others only pay tenths of a cent – but that’s 10 times more, for any fans of math out there. A few like Xbox streaming service (I’m not really sure what it is, but I get a lot of streams through it for some reason) pay a nickel!!!!!!!!!!!!!! An entire nickel for one stream! Woo hoo! 😀
November 11, 2014 @ 3:39 pm
Spotify launched in late 2008. Taylor has been famous since 2006.
November 11, 2014 @ 3:44 pm
My below comment may clear up any confusion about my opinion of the relationship between Spotify and taylor swift’s success
November 12, 2014 @ 1:33 pm
Was that really what Borchetta said?
I interpreted his “embarrassed” comment as: “I just bought a CD for $15.” “Oh yeah? I’m listening to it now for free. Don’t you feel stupid…”
Maybe we’re referring to different interviews, but the one I read concerned the embarrassment of overpaying…not of using dated media.
November 11, 2014 @ 2:51 pm
You make some good points here but,
These artists pulling their music from Spotify can thank Spotify for a big portion of their fan base
I don’t think that’s true whatsoever. All of these artists were launched before Spotify was relevant, including Taylor Swift who won CMA Entertainer of the Year five years ago today.
Yes, artists like Taylor Swift probably do make a sizable income off of Spotify, but they still make more off of physical sales. That’s the problem with Spotify’s CEO throwing all these big numbers out. It’s anecdotal, just like the idea that if streaming went away everyone would just steal music. Stealing music is becoming harder by the day. There’s no statistics supporting this argument, though it may be true. What there are statistics for is proof music makes less money off of streaming.
I don’t think that anyone should feel guilty for having a Spotify account. But I also don’t think it is fair to Taylor Swift to attack her for being misguided. It’s her music, and she can do whatever the hell she wants with it. She’s got more money than she could ever spend. What she’s doing here is for the small guy who can’t make enough money through Spotify. The solution may not be no Spotify. But maybe there is a more sustainable solution for streaming. Taylor Swift is forcing Spotify and the industry to broach that subject where they were unwilling to do so before.
November 11, 2014 @ 3:11 pm
I listen to Spotify in order to determine if I want to go and buy the album. I have around 200 cd’s and constantly growing my collection. I also have almost 600 songs on my I-pod. I like CDs better because you can read the liners notes and physically have the music, and plus if I go to a concert and it is good, I will buy a cd as a souvenir and have something for the artist to sign and help them continue make music for us to enjoy. For me it is insignificant that these artists are pulling their music off, since I don’t listen to them anyway. But if the Red Dirt/Texas country people or people like Whitey Morgan take their albums off, it will be a bummer for me, because I will not be able to preview the album before buying it.
November 11, 2014 @ 3:13 pm
I understand that most of these artists had huge fan bases before spotify, but it cannot be denied that younger fans are being introduced to these artists’ catalogues through Spotify and like services. And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, that builds fans who may buy their albums and go to their concerts. I could also be totally off base. I just feel that their has to be a silver lining to subscription services.
I also agree that more money is made off of album sales. That is pretty obvious, given that TS sold over a million records in the first week. Subscription services shouldn’t be discounted for this reason, though, as they are a way of getting their music to other fans
I also agree that Taylor shouldn’t be attacked for leaving Spotify. She obviously appreciates indie music and I truly believe that part of the reason she did it is because she believes they are getting screwed (which they very well may be). The others following her like dogs, I can’t say the same thing for, as I believe they’re doing it strictly for their own benefit.
And I also don’t agree with the idea that the people would just steal music of streaming disappeared. The sanctions are far too high for someone who gets caught stealing music (some lawsuits against said people have reached exorbitant amounts) I don’t pirate music for this very reason.
Again, I am not a musician, nor do I mingle with them, so I can’t see things the way they see them. I just see it the way I see it and I think there’s plenty of upsides to streaming services.
November 11, 2014 @ 6:38 pm
I understand that most of these artists had huge fan bases before spotify, but it cannot be denied that younger fans are being introduced to these artists”™ catalogues through Spotify and like services. And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, that builds fans who may buy their albums and go to their concerts. I could also be totally off base. I just feel that their has to be a silver lining to subscription services.
How music is introduced to younger fans, in particular, will shape (and not in a small way) the perception and consumer habits of a new generation. Say young consumers today grow up being used to practically-free music at their fingertips. Say they listen primarily through Spotify, and never really bother buying music, whether CD or download. It’s not a big leap of faith or logic to imagine this same group of listeners developing the mentality that physical CDs or iTune downloads are actually more trouble than it’s worth — some comments here have mentioned already difficulties in uploading and managing songs on their computers/iPods, and this is an audience who have grown up buying CDs, downloading through LimeWire, and are now learning to stream. The generation that grows up streaming music for free is unlikely to seek out music for downloading or purchase: The concept of finding more songs by the same artist might be interesting, and super-fans will always want to collect, but for the general, broader audience who listen to music for the mood, because it’s fun, this pattern of basically-free-everywhere-you-go consumption of music is not likely to encourage spending on music. A Spotify-type-service-dominated generation who streams for free is not likely to see music as something to be collected, but something in the background they can switch on and off. Unlike having to purchase an entire album, where people may want to get their money’s worth and at least check out the rest of the disc, there’s no real motivation or habit-formation here for the consumer to put in effort for conscious consumption.
Tangent: Are there any studies on how likely a Spotify user is to purchasing music they find on Spotify?
November 11, 2014 @ 6:43 pm
I dislike the idea of a listener having to buy an entire album just to listen to one song. The best aspect of iTunes is that the customer can buy any individual song from an album, even ones that are not radio singles.
November 11, 2014 @ 10:52 pm
Nevermind the fact that this type of buying completely sidesteps and invalidates the purpose of creating an album of music, an album that tells a story, that has a theme, and expresses a point that the artist had when he/she created that.
No, screw that. I’m plunking down 99 cents – give me my verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-bridge-chorus-out! I wanna sing aloooooong
November 11, 2014 @ 11:25 pm
Albums did not even become popular until the 1960s. Hank Williams, for example, sold his music almost entirely through singles. The only reason that albums came to monopolize recorded music was due to the lower cost of production per song when multiple songs are placed in the same disc.
November 12, 2014 @ 2:20 am
‘I dislike the idea of a listener having to buy an entire album just to listen to one song. The best aspect of iTunes is that the customer can buy any individual song from an album, even ones that are not radio singles. ‘
I think this iTunes option ( buying one song ) keeps an artist honest . If he/she wants to sell LOTS of music , it had better ALL be good and not one OK tune with a dozen filler tracks ( which most pop-country CD’s still are – filler ) .
November 12, 2014 @ 11:27 am
True.
Two things:
1. I remember talking with a group of teens about the ethics of “file sharing” and to my surprise a few didn’t know what it was. And those that did said they didn’t bother because it was too much hassle to download a program and open it and then sort through the music and organize it all on iTunes or wherever they keep their music. The vast majority said they use YouTube to get a song they want when they want it because their phones can connect to it. Others used Pandora or Slacker or Spotify to get music on the go because its’ all there and you don’t have to edit anything or organize folders.
I asked about songs that youtube or Spotify might not have like Prince or non singles/hits and they basically felt YouTube had most of what they needed so Prince was no big loss to them.
I also asked about Pandora being repetitive in song choices. And they didn’t care about that because it was usually background music if they were using a streaming service.
Lo and behold though MANY said if they really wanted a music experience or to listen to music not as background noise music they’d go to a live show and buy the music there as a memento of the event even though most don’t own any way to physically play the music they just bought.
2. I also think part of the devaluation of music came in a VERY subtle way. And that way is music, old or even current hits, are played while you shop and grocery store or at the mall. I don’t mean music playing at your mechanics office where he has on the local radio or his own music but this cache of music that is just cycled through overhead while you shop. I remember walking down the soup isle hearing Tom Petty overhead and thinking I wonder how Petty feels that his art has ended up at the supermarket as background fodder.
You don’t really pay attention to it but you are engaging in the music by not engaging with it in way and I think subtly that somehow resonates as music is always on. It’s like those things you don’t appreciate it until they are gone because they’ve always just been there (i.e. Big Yellow Taxi).
I know it’s been that way for a long time but my brother and father had stories of buying new records and the whole ritual of listening to them. Even if, in my brother’s case it was a tape in the car. I remember buying CDs and rushing to play them because I was so excited about what was in store good or ill. Music wasn’t just always on around it was sacred and had it’s place. And even radio had it’s place and was kind of scared and DJ actually had the job of digging through the music first to bring you new sound they think you’d like (yes I know about payola).
Now I see kids at BLOODY dance clubs with ear buds in their ears because they don’t like whatever song is playing or at high end restaurants with ther headphones cranked up and while hanging out with friends! It is over saturated and I think that has contributed to music’s devaluation.
November 14, 2014 @ 12:01 am
Exactly …a glut of music …new and old ….indie and label ….from amateur You Tube posts ,commercial radio, satellite radio , iTunes , streaming services , cable …..muZac in stores , dentist offices, dealerships , …CD repackaging by artists ….15-30 different bands each week ( over 1500 bands receive exposure on National networks alone ) on talk shows , morning shows , afternoon shows….countless talent contests-Idol, Voice, America’s Got Talent , Britain’s Got Talent , PBS specials , awards shows for every genre including video award shows , Austin City Limits and many many regional music programs , concert tours , festivals , local clubs , pubs , restaurants , veteran’s clubs , lounges etc.. theme music for TV and motion pictures , commercial jingles …on and on it goes . It has totally devalued music to the point where it is just wallpaper to many people .
November 11, 2014 @ 3:16 pm
I look forward to every Tuesday for new music releases. I have 7,000 songs in my iTunes and there are still more songs I want to round out my collection. I got an iPod classic just so I could carry it around with me everywhere. But I can’t afford to buy every album I want every Tuesday. I don’t subscribe to spotify but I do have a rdio subscription and it’s been a godsend. I stream albums to determine whether or not I want to buy it. If country artists start jumping ship then it makes my subscription worthless since mainly listen to country. This is all just a big mess and I hope it gets figured out soon.
November 11, 2014 @ 3:34 pm
I find it interesting that all of the above artist’s albums outside of Swift’s still appear to be available through other streaming sites including Google’s.
Not sure if the other sites pay out more or if this is a case of them purely trying to take on the biggest player in the industry.
November 11, 2014 @ 4:10 pm
Because the others are PAID services – not “here have all this music for free” services.
November 11, 2014 @ 4:42 pm
This is a Spotify issue, not a streaming issue. This is an important distinction being under-reported with this story.
November 11, 2014 @ 9:13 pm
Good point, honestly until I canceled my subscription this week and switched to Google’s streaming service, I had forgotten that Spotify had a “free” option. I had never used the Spotify free option because of the low quality of the stream itself and the ads, but I can understand artists being upset by that.
November 11, 2014 @ 4:20 pm
Are you going to revies Garth’s new album?
November 11, 2014 @ 4:43 pm
I might 😉
November 11, 2014 @ 4:44 pm
One thing I’ve seen several times here is “I use Spotify to preview album, then buy it…”
1. Most people don’t do that – they consume 100% of their music through Spotify – especially younger people – and we are talking about the future here, not how the leftover CD buyers do things.
2. Streaming is replacing albums of any format. Good or bad is besides the point – there is not going to be any album purchasing 5-10 years from now. Those avenues won’t even be worth the maintenance to keep up. Everything will streamed. So your alleged purchasing after the preview has no bearing on the future whatsoever and is a tired argument.
3. The service preview thing sounded so good that I tried it twice today. Once at my car repair place and once at a restaurant. Neither was willing to let me preview their services for a while before deciding whether or not I wanted to eventually pay them for their work. What the hell people? I have to just trust that your food is going to be to my liking?
November 12, 2014 @ 9:20 am
I’m one of those people who consume music through Spotify nearly 100% of the time. I’m a premium subscriber so I pay $120 a year for music. Prior to Spotify, I bought a few albums per year at most so my music spending was closer to $20 or $30 per year. I do my best to share artists I appreciate with as many people as possible and go to as many concerts as I can.
My biggest issue with this whole thing is that everyone is making it a Spotify versus artists problem. Jimmy Buffett stood up and asked the Spotify CEO at conference when they were going to start paying artists more. Spotify has come out and shared how much of their revenue has been paid out. The problem is that the labels and publishers agree to the rates with Spotify and take out their cuts before it makes it to the artists. Why is that never focused on?
November 12, 2014 @ 1:39 pm
It’s also a marketplace problem.
Artists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be on streaming because it gets them exposure, keeps them in the competitive loop and makes them see more “modern” and fan-friendly, but they forget that the current streaming model – paid or free, Spotify or otherwise – requires them to immensely compromise with their personal valuation models.
Even if Spotify gave artists 100% of its revenue, it wouldn’t be reflective of their belief that an album is worth $10+ and a song is worth $1.29.
Aloe Blacc ripped Pandora for paying the songwriters $12K in royalties for a hit as big as Wake Me Up, which does seem horrifyingly low at face, but he neglects to recognize that Pandora didn’t make a killing off that song either. It’s not like Pandora made 5 million.
November 11, 2014 @ 4:46 pm
As a kid I was one of the first users of Napster (and the various p2p services that followed). In college you could download directly from massive media servers run by random guys in the dorms. I’ve seen flash drives passed around with huge collections of music. Nowadays you can download a torrent client and the hot new album is just a search away. Or you can go on youtube and use any number of tools to rip the sound right out of the music videos.
Point being that acquiring digital music illegally has been and currently is extremely friggin easy. The recording companies had a chance to nip the problem in the bud at the start, but instead they spent the next decade with their heads in the sand fighting tooth and nail against any sort of advance in digital distribution. Downloading and sharing is convenient, easy and free, and it drew an awful lot of kids like me in. Once the genie was out of the bottle you got a whole generation of kids that didn’t assign any value to music and were no longer willing to drop $20 on a cd. Lower cd prices and itunes helped but came way too late and initially had too many restrictions. That’s why Spotify and its kind exist – it’s the first service that actually drew these people back to paying for the majority of their music. It was more convenient than downloading from sketchy websites, it was easy to use, and for $10 a month you got all the music you wanted. That”™s a deal that most can justify.
I’m not saying that any of this is right or wrong, nor do I have the answers on how to fix it. The record companies screwed up by vehemently fighting instead of quickly reacting to the market, and now they and their artists are paying the price. I stopped downloading and sharing early in high school – I found country music and got a job, which gave me a new appreciation of music and a perspective on value. I dabbled in cd’s and itunes for a while, but the original Zune streaming service got me hooked. Now I get the same $10 a month deal with Google Music – I get to listen to all the new releases, and my favorite albums have been streamed enough that I’ve probably paid their full price. I go to as many concerts as possible (most of the red dirt/texahoma/americana artists make it to the Chicago/Milwaukee/Madison area every year), and I pretty much always buy a shirt or vinyl. I feel like this is an acceptable way to consume music.
November 11, 2014 @ 10:56 pm
It takes 1,000 listens of a particular track to = the purchase of an album. Have you streamed any of your favorites 1,000 times?
Legit question … because I’ve been listening to “The Dance” by Garth Brooks for what, 20 years (?) now, and I doubt I’ve heard it 1,000 times.
November 12, 2014 @ 12:46 am
Never actually have done the math, so maybe that was a stretch. I’m seeing $.008 paid out per stream with Spotify, not sure about other services. Assuming the value of a song is $1 (which is further skewed by albums containing more than ten songs but priced at $10), I would have to stream a song roughly 125 times to pay its full value. There are several albums that have gone through my rotation at least that many times, but you’re right now that I look at it most aren’t close.
So do you feel I’m cheating the artist if I’m attending their concerts, buying merch and buying vinyls (which come with a digital album anyways), but using streaming to listen to their music? For me the whole point of streaming is to discover new bands and weed out the cruft that’s not worth more than a one time listen. Honest question, since I always thought I was being fair.
November 12, 2014 @ 1:05 am
If you are willing to pay to attend an artist’s concerts, it’s a good bet that you would be willing to pay for the album if the music is not legally available for free. Yes, streaming is helpful for discovering new artists. But chances are, if you haven’t discovered T-Swift by now, she’s probably not your cup of tea.
November 12, 2014 @ 12:48 pm
“Fairness” .. hmm.. I guess that’s a tough one, right? You are an anecdote – your behavior is not “typical” of the consumer. So, perhaps YOU are being fair in your usage, but do I believe it’s fair that someone can pay $10/month for an unlimited library of music that pays the creators of that music a paltry sum? No, I don’t believe that is “fair.”
As you said, it takes 100-125 streams of a song to equate to the sale of one download. There are typically ten songs on an album. So, roughly 1000 listens of one song = one album downloaded. If a million people listen to a track, that equates to roughly 1000 album sales. So, you spend, oh, $20,000-$50,000 to create the album, you spend a much larger amount of money to promote and market the album, you get a million people to listen to even the lead single off that album, and as a result, you make about $8,000. I’d say that’s pretty low on the “fair” scale.
Now, it’s unlikely that people will stream a great song only once, so of course the amount of money comes in multiples. But, when you break it down like that, you start to understand that all of the time, money and effort spent to get people to listen to that song is in no way close to compensated at the current streaming rate.
Again, Taylor, Jason, Luke, etc… it’s all grandstanding for them to a degree. But, when you look at the independent artist who has a lot to gain, and a lot to lose, by streaming, you start to understand the small-scale economics.
Some have commented that Spotify gets the indie artist exposure. That’s all well and good, but if there’s then no real reason to BUY the album (because you can just keep streaming for free), that exposure doesn’t do nearly as much. It was once true that all the money spent to get on radio is valuable because a listener will hear a song, and then if they want it on demand must go PAY for it. That is no longer true, so the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction for the indie artist.
Of course, as I’ve said many times on this blog, it’s OUR jobs as artists to write better music. It’s our job to give people a reason to not only listen, but to BUY and to encourage their FRIENDS to buy. That’s still the best promotion there will ever be.
But, if we can’t make music because we have to work 10 other jobs to pay rent, because someone can enjoy our music infinitely for which we get paid a whopping 0.008 per play … well… then you’ll just keep getting the awesomeness that is conglomerated music.
🙂
November 11, 2014 @ 6:23 pm
I think music in the future will rely largely on ad revenue, much like social networking companies. Basically all of the songs that a listener wants can already be found on Youtube. The key for the viability of the recording industry and the livelihood of the musicians lies in posting entire albums on Youtube (or similar free sites) and posting large numbers of ads between songs.
November 11, 2014 @ 6:26 pm
I understand the reasoning behind Taylor Swift pulling her entire catalog from Spotify (album sales, fan base, creative freedom/work, money), but Brantley Gilbert, Jason Aldean and Justin Moore? Losing Taylor may be a loss but when it comes to Aldean, Gilbert and Moore..I see it as a victory. Less craptacular music to stream. Its no loss to me and others who appreciate true quality country music.
November 11, 2014 @ 6:29 pm
Spotify and YouTube certainly have their place in the blame game I feel…………….but I can’t stress enough my sincere belief that is the homogeneity of music as reflected in the monogenre effect that is most to blame for the plunge in overall sales.
When people are both informed and passionate about the music they feel, they will still respond in droves. Adele remains a fairly recent example of this. The “Frozen” soundtrack is by far the best received movie soundtrack since “O’ Brother Where Art Thou”……………which the lack of airplay and promotion certainly didn’t stop over six million from purchasing either. And I know “The Outsiders” has received such a sharply polarizing response here, but I think it’s fair to say Eric Church’s glowing reputation as a live performer and his ability to straddle various musical demographics is a testament to his album bowing stronger than most any other album this calendar year to date.
So why have countless other albums underperformed this year? Because either 1) many consumers are not informed of the gems that are out there in the open, or in more commercial cases, 2) the music offers no incentive for listeners to care or feel passionate about it. They pander squarely to what executives THINK listeners want to hear instead of artists taking full creative control into their own hands.
I know one can point to, say, Maroon 5 or Katy Perry’s latest releases as evidence mediocrity can still sell. Yet, you can just as quickly offer a rebuttal arguing they could be selling even more if they pandered less to the monogenre tidal wave. Granted only two singles have made a major impact among its five singles, but “Prism” has still sold less than half of what “Teenage Daydream” sold. And even though both its singles thus far have become big hits, “V” has yet to hit the Gold threshold while its predecessor, “Overexposed”, sold about a million and a half units domestically.
Beyond that, until “1989” bowed, not a single album released in 2014 has crossed the million threshold in sales. And why should that surprise anyone? The exquisite music is largely obscure and overlooked by a broader listener base, while the selections that are shoved down our throats largely succumb to the monogenre and are painfully interchangeable. Cole Swindell is being trounced by Sturgill Simpson in record sales for exactly that reason.
November 11, 2014 @ 6:34 pm
I doubt that popular dissatisfaction has much to do with the low sales.
The music industry is not stupid. The labels obsess over marketing research, and if they found that listeners wanted a different kind of music, that is exactly what they would be selling.
November 11, 2014 @ 7:53 pm
Scott Brochetta runs a multi-billion dollar empire. He is not about to let you, the ATM machine, I mean the listener, decide what he does. Scott Brochetta and others of his ilk believe that THEY should be telling you what to listen to, how to act, what to wear, etc.
No one cared to shirts about Jason Aldean or Luke Bryan back in 2008. Then, they both got forced down everyone’s throats by Brochetta and FM radio and all of a sudden, they were overnight superstars. This same haughty attitude by music executives is why you have so many new artists who don’t know how to sing yet make it big. What to Cole Swindell, Jason Aldean, Justin Moore, Katy Perry, Rihanna and Taylor Swift all have in common. They all can’t sing, yet they’ve all been forced down everyone’s throats and made it big. You don’t tell Scott Brcohetta what you like on your pizza, he sets a narrative that everyone likes toppings X-Y-Z and then you follow along or you get relegated and laughed at.
November 11, 2014 @ 8:14 pm
But folks like Scott Borchetta, Justin Moore, Jason Aldean, FGL, Sam Hunt, Cole Swindell, Thomas Rhett, Tyler Farr…they will all fade and burn out quick. If it means that folks who appreciate true country music with substance, grit, heart and solid musicianship get laughed at, I only have this to say: we will get the last laugh because every one of those dogs will have their day. Happens in pop music and every other genre.
November 11, 2014 @ 11:22 pm
I do not see the importance of “grit” in music. Listening to music should serve as a pleasant experience, not one that grates on the ears.
November 12, 2014 @ 4:16 pm
Depends on what your definition of “grit” is. As long as it’s not Brantley Gilbert’s definition of grit…
November 11, 2014 @ 11:20 pm
Every single one of the artists that you mention became famous because they were able to build a large fan base early in their careers. Taylor Swift, for example, achieved fame back when Big Machine was a tiny independent label. It is thanks largely to her efforts that Scott Borchetta and Big Machine are so wealthy and powerful today. As for Jason Aldean, others have mentioned how he was able to connect with the Nickelback and hick-hop fan bases at a grassroots level.
Justin Moore, Luke Bryan, and Rihanna all have highly textured voices, no matter how much you might dislike their songs.
If anything, the best current example of an artist being “shoved down” listeners’ throats would be Kacey Musgraves, who is enjoying aggressive promotion from Mercury Records and yet still lags in sales and popularity.
November 14, 2014 @ 1:56 pm
I understand exactly what you’re saying, Eric. A lot of artists cater to a particular demographic. I happen to place Jason Aldean, Luke Bryan, FGL and Brantley Gilbert (among others) into the “frat boy/man child/douchebag” demographic. They may have unique texture to their voices, however it doesn’t mean that their voices are particularly pleasing to the ears.
Looking for quality music is a lot of work and I applaud people like Trigger for getting the word out. It may be a lot of work but its worth the time & effort to find great artists. Besides: would you rather be stuck listening to Jason Aldean?
November 11, 2014 @ 11:31 pm
By the way, neither Jason Aldean nor Luke Bryan is on Borchetta’s label. Jason Aldean is on Broken Bow Records (a small independent label) and Luke Bryan is on Capitol Nashville.
November 14, 2014 @ 2:02 pm
I’m well aware of which labels these artists are signed to. You can’t help but to know because they’re being shoved down our throats at every available opportunity.
November 12, 2014 @ 11:43 am
I agree completely. I think I may have said this elsewhere… There is a reason “All About The Bass” shot to number #1 beating out “Shake It Off” and I believe it is because it doesn’t sound like “Shake It Off” it sounds new and unique, at least to those who never listened to 50s/60s soul. The same I think was true for Blurred Lines. They were songs that shirked the mono genre in some way for good or ill and it worked. People are clamoring for variety in the mainstream music world. This is also why I think there is such a high turnover for songs and artists because people keep moving on until they find something NEW.
“All About The Bass” was a fluke. It was not backed by a big promotion machine like Swift’s album was, which is saying a lot right there. And TBH finding artists like Sturgill Simpson or Lake Street Dive or other really talented non-mainstream acts is hard f—ing work. It takes time and effort and most people don’t have the kind of energy. Look at how much energy Trigger puts into this damn website alone trying to get the word out.
And I only found this website because I was actively Goggling for best new country acts not on radio. Most never even think to do that. They just go with what the radio or youtube puts up front.
November 11, 2014 @ 7:18 pm
In all honesty, I have Rhapsody. The only part that sucks is that the aforementioned artists’ music is still available for streaming. Thank God for websites like this one, otherwise I’d still be plugged into the Matrix that is mainstream “country” music.
November 11, 2014 @ 8:46 pm
Now if Jason Aldean, Brantley Gilbert and Justin Moore would pull their quasi-country crap from radio… (Swindell, Luke and a dozen others as well) that would be a story… with a happy ending. As far as Spotify,and hopefuly other services soon…. I dont care if ya cant stream Taylor Swift… maybe the deprived will stream some of Kathy Mattea’s new cd instead… they’ve never heard her, and I bet it’s there , and most likely will be for a long time.
Whatever happens… I will come here to learn of new and underplayed artists, you tube to listen, and the artists websites to buy — nothing changes because of anything Jason Aldouche does — screw him and his ilk.
I have a Rhapsody subscription, and I can’t imagine most of the artists I stream would take similar action. Indie artists need and want to be heard. This just clears the clutter a bit. The question is really if Spotify and the others can live on the streaming rights of Holly Williams and Sturgill Simpson et al if the current big names pull out of streaming for more profit.
November 12, 2014 @ 2:23 am
AMEN ..the acts mentioned as being pulled are doing us a favour by not subjecting us to as much of their pop-whatever-the-hell-it-is .
November 11, 2014 @ 9:52 pm
Less shitty music on Spotify.
We should be celebrating this.
November 12, 2014 @ 12:58 am
I can’t stand her music, but I gotta say, she used to act like a sweet little girl, but dang she is tough.
When I try to look at this situation objectively, I think there are some problems with the streaming business model that have not been fully resolved. Free streaming is more effective as a promotional channel than as a monetization channel. A new artist who is not famous benefits from the exposure that might allow her to make a living from live shows. But a celebrity who is mainly intererested in selling music to devoted fans has little reason to give it away for free. It is more profitable to make fans pay for content, than to turn paid consumers into free consumers. So the interests of established celebrities like Taylor might not align with the interests of the majority of music artists. The solution might be an integrated platform that combines a paid model like iTunes for the big hit makers with a free streaming model for the emerging artists. Unfortunately for companies like Spotify and Pandora, I’d guess that the big players such as Apple have more leverage to work with the various stakeholders.
November 12, 2014 @ 2:25 am
‘I can”™t stand her music, but I gotta say, she used to act like a sweet little girl, but dang she is tough.’
C’mon …it isn’t TS making the BIG decisions. Its her label making them FOR her and FOR themselves.
November 12, 2014 @ 3:36 am
This is not a profitable business decision for the label. As was reported today, Big Machine will likely lose $6 million in revenue due to Taylor Swift’s catalog being pulled out of Spotify.
Combine this with Taylor’s strong personal statement, and it is increasingly looking like this decision was entirely Taylor’s idea.
November 12, 2014 @ 2:22 am
I readily admit I don’t have a handle on this streaming thing . I mean if artist and labels KNOW it pays so poorly why do they even get involved in the first place only to pull their product later ?
November 12, 2014 @ 6:27 am
For all you music lovers out there, I would recommend you visit Reverbnation.com or Number1Music.com. There are thousands of unknown independent artists out there that have music available for download for free (some for sale). A lot of the “for sale” songs have portions of the sales that go to charities. These are great sites to find good music (and some no-so-good, of course…) of all genres. They have fairly decent search engines and there is unknown music on these sites that will blow you away.
No producers, no publishers and no mega record companies. Just artists sharing their talent with the world. Check ’em out, and you’ll be pleasantly surprised!
November 12, 2014 @ 6:43 am
Wow! It sounds like the content on Spotify is really improving! Four down, 75 to go!
November 12, 2014 @ 7:53 am
I’m conflicted about this. This reminds me too much of when Metallica got all bent out of shape about Napster. I’m all for musicians getting paid for the product they produce, but bands like Grateful Dead didn’t need to sell albums to become millionaires, they did by consistently touring, creating a marketable brand, and allowing people to tape and and trade live shows. Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but it seems to me, that their isn’t really a good excuse for Taylor Swift to not be on tour at least 3 months out of a year. But, I guess we know that won’t happen, because then it would force her to actually become a real musician.
November 12, 2014 @ 10:00 am
I think you forget that most file sharing on Napster was illegal. It was stealing. Artists were not given a choice whether or not to participate. Illegal file sharing was a violation of private property rights, and thus did not constitute a free market.
November 12, 2014 @ 11:16 am
I didn’t say it was exactly the same thing, but it is similar in opinion. In both situations, the artists are trying to create an environment where more music is being sold to the consumer and not listened to for free. The bigger point I was trying to make is that real musicians who create a brand out of playing live shows, and aren’t afraid of being on the road to promote their music, usually don’t have to worry about how many albums get sold, because they are making their money the old fashioned way by playing live.
November 12, 2014 @ 11:48 am
I remember Metallica getting pissy about Napster and then Bono of U2 said something like, “What do I care I have my millions how much more do I need?” LOL! Two giants on opposite ends of the spectrum.
And Napster was killed but FAR WORSE things have sprung up.
November 12, 2014 @ 11:51 am
The ONLY things that Bono cares about are his millions, and telling everyone else that they are selfish and should be forced to send money to some third-world hell hole.
November 12, 2014 @ 8:11 am
Spotify is awesome. For a music consumer it is heaven. Is it a perfect situation for artists/labels/lawyers/etc..?
No. It’s not.
But if Taylor Swift and Aldean and whoever else doesn’t want to be on Spotify – good for them. Here’s hoping they sell a few more CDs.
Having Swift’s mediocre music not available on Spotify doesn’t make Spotify any less terrific. Plenty of great music on the platform to enjoy.
November 12, 2014 @ 10:52 am
I haven’t read your commentary so maybe you addressed this but did you read this article
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/spotify-founder-to-taylor-swift-our-interests-are-totally-aligned-with-yours-20141112
November 12, 2014 @ 11:52 am
I am pulling this quote from a comments section because i Thought it was an interesting take:
“For most, the business model is wrong. KISS has the best model for the business and that is use the music to move the merchandise such as toys, clothes, perfumes magazines, books and movies. Beyonce’s “day job” is a model and so is Taylor Swift’s and Lady Gaga’s day job. The day jobs for Usher, Jay-Z and Kanye West are producers.”
I don’t agree with idea of just merchandising to hell and back just to make money, especially since most artists are music first. But I do agree that TS and other make a large sum of money from magazine covers and interviews and that sometimes that becomes more important than the music they make.
November 12, 2014 @ 12:48 pm
Taylor Swift maybe a loss but not a big one. This steaming service is global so even if a lot of mainstream artist leave, their catalogue is still enormous.
And they still have Katy Perry, Kanye West, Daft Punk, Ke$ha, Lady Gaga, etc.
November 12, 2014 @ 4:22 pm
Either way, my music consists of these genres: country (actual country), folk, classic rock, old school R&B, Americana, bluegrass, classical and heavy metal. Not interested in what is popular in the mainstream too much.
November 12, 2014 @ 7:18 pm
If we don’t value the art form, it will go away, period. When songwriters can’t make a living writing songs they cease writing songs, and if music is being obtained for free they aren’t making a living.
Garth stated this same thing back in 2005; he was right them and he’s right now. Call him a dinosaur for not embracing the technology, but he is right about the shift in music and the difficulty of new artists to get paid for their creativity.
November 12, 2014 @ 9:18 pm
Spotify should be worried about Youtube’s upcoming launch. I’m put off by their transparent tactics. Saying that they pay an enormous amount of money to labels and publishers is meaningless. If the songwriters are not being paid what they should be paid, then an enormous amount isn’t enough. Their comments and approach are strictly aimed at getting sympathy and support from fans/users. Huge turn-off. This is a business issue and the fans should not be put in the fray.
November 13, 2014 @ 10:39 am
Interesting … while I was reading this, I got a message from Rhapsody to “Put on Jason Aldean’s new album, Old Boots and New Dirt.”
November 13, 2014 @ 4:45 pm
My guess is this has to do more with the “free” part of Spotify than other streaming services that do not have such models. As other posters have pointed out, Spotify’s free model is essentially giving music away whereas other streaming services such as Google, Rhapsody, Beats, do not have such things and probably pay out more per stream.
Plus, let’s face it if the music biz is serious about getting paid more per stream they may as well go after the biggest dog at the dance and that clearly is Spotify.
December 29, 2014 @ 6:52 pm
I’ll be honest I never liked miss swift, but I got to admit that was a bold, and in my opinion smart move for her, or anyone else who is doing it (I’m looking at you Aldean and Gilbert). Now only if everyone will take note from her. Technaclly she tome note from AC/DC, who never even put their catalogue on spotify (trust me I’ve looked). Can’t wait to see how this turns out.