View Full Version : The last desperate fart of a dying corpse
losenotaminute
07-10-2013, 20:53
Interesting article in the Independent today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/thom-yorke-calls-spotify-the-last-desperate-fart-of-a-dying-corpse-8863899.html
Surely if he doesn't want his work available on Spotify then he just has to say no and sell it the conventional way? I don't really understand his point to be honest...
It's not about Spotify, it's about a general mentality of 'why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?' If Spotify didn't exist there'd be countless other ways to access the same music, for free. At least with Spotify people get a cut of the proceedings, even if minuscule.
losenotaminute
07-10-2013, 21:25
But Spotify premium isn't free, and according to their spokesperson they have paid $500 million to rights holders already this year. Loss leaders are a very effective way of building a market, and if the artists don't like what they are paid by Spotify they are free to refuse to participate. What does he want, the taxpayer to fund all pop musicians? I'm afraid I still don't really understand what he thinks a better model of music distribution would look like.
Lawrence
But Spotify premium isn't free, and according to their spokesperson they have paid $500 million to rights holders already this year. Loss leaders are a very effective way of building a market, and if the artists don't like what they are paid by Spotify they are free to refuse to participate. What does he want, the taxpayer to fund all pop musicians? I'm afraid I still don't really understand what he thinks a better model of music distribution would look like.
Lawrence
Yes I agree, I pay for Spotify Premium, which is why I mentioned them helping artists to get an (admittedly tiny) cut. Am sure Thom Yorke makes enough though overall.
Not sure just what his point is. He suggests something wonderful would happen if it wasn’t for Spotify. But he gives no clue what that would be, and just who it would be wonderful for. But its not as if Spotify is the only thing out there, or that its existence is stopping any other method of musicians getting music to people.
sq225917
08-10-2013, 06:48
Rights owners get cents for thousands of album plays on Spotify, its a shit model for them. At least an album sale on iTunes gets them 99 cents.
StanleyB
08-10-2013, 06:53
A better model might be to base pay outs on a sliding scale of fame. The more famous artists get less since it is more than likely they have made enough already out of selling music.
Interesting article in the Independent today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/thom-yorke-calls-spotify-the-last-desperate-fart-of-a-dying-corpse-8863899.html
Surely if he doesn't want his work available on Spotify then he just has to say no and sell it the conventional way? I don't really understand his point to be honest...
He's not fighting for himself or for Radiohead, they no longer need the money, hence you won't get their music on spotify...
I suppose he/they are fortunate to be so financially secure they can make a stand, whether you agree with him or not he is at least a man of principle.
I believe his model is a direct interaction between the band and the customer, so they handle the distribution of their work, I bought their last 2 albums (and boxed sets) directly from radiohead's web site.
For more obscure up and coming bands it's often the only way to get their stuff, but I have to admit that buying from amazon, where possible, is a damned site easier...I just don't have the time to trawl around the internet.
P.S. I rarely use spotify, life's too short to listen to mp3s ;)
I suppose he/they are fortunate to be so financially secure they can make a stand, whether you agree with him or not he is at least a man of principle.
The first part of that statement makes the end part less meaningful.
For me the real advantage to Spotify is it works like a large juke box. I can quickly listen to something (either I know already or new to me) and then may want to buy that later.
IMHO, life is too short to wait for stuff to arrive from Amazon.
Being a musician is very laudable but it's not a proper job. I have no idea why they expect to get paid everytime someone plays one of their tunes. Live performance, fair enough, but why should they get a continous income for 'work' they did years ago? It doesn't happen that way for the rest of us.
The first part of that statement makes the end part less meaningful.
My point being that he's not fighting for himself, more for the future of up and coming musicians...
Stratmangler
08-10-2013, 07:46
Down at the bottom of the article is this quote from Thom Yorke
Make no mistake new artists you discover on #Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly be rolling in it. Simples.
StanleyB
08-10-2013, 07:49
If the world was just full of well paid musicians, who would do the work that matters most? Whilst I am glad that every tune played on Spotify etc. results in a small payment to "a musician", who actually gets the money? The singer, the songwriter, the instrument players? Who?
I only became aware of the fact that payments are normally made to the songwriter after reading about a legal wrangle with royalty payments of a sampled tune from The Police. The sampled piece is from the guitarist, but Sting gets the royalties since he is accredited as the songwriter.
Now I don't hear musicians making much noise about that even though they might be getting royalties that they are not morally entitled to.
Stratmangler
08-10-2013, 07:57
Who made the most money out of The Beatles?
In their early days sheet music was big business, and that was where big royalty payments came in.
Somewhere along the line concessions were made for paying the performing artist on record sales, but the lion's share of the royalties still went to the songwriter.
StanleyB
08-10-2013, 08:07
Which clearly puts into perspective all this winging from these artists. Whilst writing a tune is an art, transforming those words into a money spinning vocal expression is a lot more of an art.
I don't feel sorry for any of these songwriters who feel they don't get a fair share of the cash, until they start giving the musicians a fair share of the action.
Which clearly puts into perspective all this winging from these artists. Whilst writing a tune is an art, transforming those words into a money spinning vocal expression is a lot more of an art.
I don't feel sorry for any of these songwriters who feel they don't get a fair share of the cash, until they start giving the musicians a fair share of the action.
Just ask the drummer and bassist from the Smiths, who apparently got next to nothing, and effectively worked as session musicians...
I think the music industry, and the internet service industry, have a very similar agenda...they want to make us reliant on their services, which will become more expensive as alternatives diminish.
Witness the Kindle HD fire, and Google Nexus tablets, loss leaders with no expandable storage, both heavily configured towards each vendors services. The latest android HTC phones no longer sport an SD card in Europe and the US (strangely enough there's room for 2 sims and an SD card on the Chinese one).
With regard to music people like ourselves only make up a small %age of the population, we'll probably always want to own our music, but increasingly people are beginning to rely on the likes of spotify for their 'music collection'...I seem to recall it all started off being 'Free'...mmmm a bit like your first couple of years of cloud storage! :doh:
StanleyB
08-10-2013, 08:57
I have tried to give budding artists a chance to have a link from my site to any site they might have with music to listen to or download. The Merchant brothers were the only one who took up my offer. It's only a small way to get known, but if enough HIFI equipment dealers etc dedicated a page to new music and linked to new up and coming artists, the music world could be a better place.
Who made the most money out of The Beatles?
In their early days sheet music was big business, and that was where big royalty payments came in.
Somewhere along the line concessions were made for paying the performing artist on record sales, but the lion's share of the royalties still went to the songwriter.
Ain't you a couple of decades late there Chris?
The thought of your average family converging in the parlour to gather round the Joanna for a family rendition of she loves you . ooh!
Priceless:lol:
Stratmangler
08-10-2013, 09:12
Ain't you a couple of decades late there Chris?
The thought of your average family converging in the parlour to gather round the Joanna for a family rendition of she loves you . ooh!
Priceless:lol:
The point is that the same model is still in place - why is it Sting got the royalties for Andy Summer's sampled guitar part.
BTW the picture you paint was very much a part of my upbringing - don't knock it 'til you try it ;)
The point is that the same model is still in place - why is it Sting got the royalties for Andy Summer's sampled guitar part.
BTW the picture you paint was very much a part of my upbringing - don't knock it 'til you try it ;)
I aint knocking it ,sounds idyllic ;)
the reason Sting got the royalties is simple he wrote the song it wasn,t just the guitar riff that was used ,although it is the instantly recognisable part, Summers put the riff to Stings song if he wanted more luka then he should have had a better arrangement with Sting. Sadly this is the same for a lot of bands , but they are often young and naïve when they form and royalty percentages are the last thing on their minds ,personally I blame the managers
Paul
Stratmangler
08-10-2013, 10:02
personally I blame the managers
Many a band has been screwed over by their manager, and you'd be surprised at how many megastars found themselves in exactly that position.
The weird one that record companies have over royalties is that the royalties for a CD sale are less than for a vinyl sale.
Summat to do with an "untried format" clause at the birth of the silver beer mat.
And it's still in force today.
The proper solution to this is to go and see live bands and buy product directly from them.
Rothchild
10-10-2013, 07:37
Being a musician is very laudable but it's not a proper job. I have no idea why they expect to get paid everytime someone plays one of their tunes. Live performance, fair enough, but why should they get a continous income for 'work' they did years ago? It doesn't happen that way for the rest of us.
By extension being an inventor of any sort isn't really a proper job, why should folk be able to copyright / patent anything and then charge a licence fee for anyone else to use the idea for years afer it was invented? They should just be paid for the invention, why should they get a continuous income for 'work' they did years ago?
By extension being an inventor of any sort isn't really a proper job, why should folk be able to copyright / patent anything and then charge a licence fee for anyone else to use the idea for years afer it was invented? They should just be paid for the invention, why should they get a continuous income for 'work' they did years ago?
Indeed , and it can and has been argued that the patent system stifles innovation and increases prices. I know plenty of musicians, they all have proper jobs and play and make music in their spare time. Yes they would like to get signed , make a multi-platinum album and buy a mansion and a yacht but it aint going to happen. They still enjoy themselves though, and others enjoy what they do. It's not all about money, and that's how it should be.
Rothchild
10-10-2013, 11:03
Indeed , and it can and has been argued that the patent system stifles innovation and increases prices. I know plenty of musicians, they all have proper jobs and play and make music in their spare time. Yes they would like to get signed , make a multi-platinum album and buy a mansion and a yacht but it aint going to happen. They still enjoy themselves though, and others enjoy what they do. It's not all about money, and that's how it should be.
I think the counter argument (by inventors) is why would anyone invest in R&D? Because once you've done so and invented something worth anything if anyone can make it then you've lost the initial commitment you made to it. In a way ongoing payments for music are the same, in that they are 'back-pay' for the efforts made working on getting to the point where you had something saleable. I think R&D costs are also regularly wheeled out as a justification for the err.. higher than might appear sensible prices of some HiFi gear.
I don't think we can compare industrial R & D with writing songs for a living. Some of the greatest tunes were written, by their creators own admission, very quickly.
McCartney dreamt the melody for 'Yesterday' - I bet that's netted him millions over the years. Hardly comparable with someone like James Dyson struggling for twenty years and spending a fortune to get a product to market.
Rothchild
10-10-2013, 12:59
I don't think we can compare industrial R & D with writing songs for a living. Some of the greatest tunes were written, by their creators own admission, very quickly.
McCartney dreamt the melody for 'Yesterday' - I bet that's netted him millions over the years. Hardly comparable with someone like James Dyson struggling for twenty years and spending a fortune to get a product to market.
We don't know that Dyson's 20 year struggle didn't end up in a single moment of brilliant serendipity. I agree that there may well be differences in terms of scale (between industrial R&D and songwriting) but I still contest that the fundamental principle is the same. Is a brilliant idea come up with in a momentary flash necessarily less brilliant that one that's been tweaked and rehashed over a period of time? No. Do we think that the person who has a brilliant idea (arrived at by either route) has a right to capitalise on it and gain a reward for it? Probably.
(it should be said that, in general, I agree with you but I think it's an interesting issue to try and form a couple of clear guiding principals from. Patents (as used by IP trolls and the like) do stifle innovation but are needed to protect R&D budgets etc so, yes, Patents should be reformed. The fact that Copyright has been rewritten several times in the US basically on the grounds of protecting the income stream from 'Happy Birthday' is IMO utterly rediculous)
Another thing to consider is that it's highly likely that the reason there are fewer great recordings by great bands is exactly because of the 'democratisation' of recording, production and distribution. You probably need fewer fingers than you possess to count the bands that would these days be paid to go and write an album in a top flight studio, let alone (having written it) take a week to get the kick drum sound for one track, this was a lot more the norm in the 'golden age' of recording (mid to late 70s) This entirely parallels the argument about reducing R&D funding due to 'theft' by third parties.
Surely in a forum with its heart in music we might find a few more people sticking up for musicians?!
Interesting article in the Independent today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/thom-yorke-calls-spotify-the-last-desperate-fart-of-a-dying-corpse-8863899.html
Surely if he doesn't want his work available on Spotify then he just has to say no and sell it the conventional way? I don't really understand his point to be honest...
Why single out Spotify from all the other streaming services? Perish the thought that it could have something to do with the fact that the service rose from the ashes of Napster. Get over it Yorke and move with the times for crying out loud, Spotify does, at the very least, pay royalties. Why not aim that massive and egotistical intellect at the real culprits, torrent sites and greedy middle men...
Stratmangler
11-10-2013, 10:03
Why single out Spotify from all the other streaming services? Perish the thought that it could have something to do with the fact that the service rose from the ashes of Napster. Get over it Yorke and move with the times for crying out loud, Spotify does, at the very least, pay royalties. Why not aim that massive and egotistical intellect at the real culprits, torrent sites and greedy middle men...
I think Thom Yorke is more annoyed with Spotify paying the least amount of royalties it can.
He doesn't need the money, but a developing artist does.
And he sees Spotify as a greedy middleman.
Another thing to consider is that it's highly likely that the reason there are fewer great recordings by great bands is exactly because of the 'democratisation' of recording, production and distribution. You probably need fewer fingers than you possess to count the bands that would these days be paid to go and write an album in a top flight studio, let alone (having written it) take a week to get the kick drum sound for one track, this was a lot more the norm in the 'golden age' of recording (mid to late 70s) This entirely parallels the argument about reducing R&D funding due to 'theft' by third parties.
?!
I have a digital Tascam porta studio that in theory will give far better results than the best of seventies analogue studio gear, adequate mics are cheap, the only sticking point is finding somewhere large enough to set up and make some serious noise. I'm afraid the reasons there is less good music being made these days are
1) the talent isn't there to anything like the same degree.
2) it's all been done before .
magiccarpetride
15-10-2013, 22:04
Being a musician is very laudable but it's not a proper job. I have no idea why they expect to get paid everytime someone plays one of their tunes. Live performance, fair enough, but why should they get a continous income for 'work' they did years ago? It doesn't happen that way for the rest of us.
It has to do with the so-caled 'intellectual property'. This bullsh*t term was invented by lawyers, and in reality that thing doesn't really exist. But, for some select group of people it spells easy money, so it's no surprise that they're holding on strong to that phantom.
If you make a chair and sell it at a fair market price, you'd be a complete idiot to expect that the person who bought it pays you 'royalties' each time someone sits on that chair. Even if that chair is quite original and innovative. But for some unfathomable reason some musicians expect to be paid royalties each time their song gets played.
Stratmangler
15-10-2013, 22:17
But for some unfathomable reason some musicians expect to be paid royalties each time their song gets played.
Not true.
I've never had an invoice from a musician for payment every time I play a record, and I'm pretty damned sure it's the same with you too.
When their song is played on a radio station or gets used on TV it's a different set of circumstances.
There's commercial gain to be had from playing the record, and it's only fair that the writer/recording artist gets a share of that.
Or do you not like playing recordings of musical artists? :scratch:
magiccarpetride
15-10-2013, 22:37
Not true.
I've never had an invoice from a musician for payment every time I play a record, and I'm pretty damned sure it's the same with you too.
When their song is played on a radio station or gets used on TV it's a different set of circumstances.
There's commercial gain to be had from playing the record, and it's only fair that the writer/recording artist gets a share of that.
Or do you not like playing recordings of musical artists? :scratch:
If that was true, I would not have to pay a dime for purchasing remastered reissues. But I do, meaning they're very happy to sell me the same material over and over again. I've never heard a musician complaining how his/her fans got ripped off because they were expected to pay money for obtaining yet another copy of the same material.
Stratmangler
15-10-2013, 22:58
If that was true, I would not have to pay a dime for purchasing remastered reissues. But I do, meaning they're very happy to sell me the same material over and over again. I've never heard a musician complaining how his/her fans got ripped off because they were expected to pay money for obtaining yet another copy of the same material.
I think you're targetting the wrong people.
The artist usually doesn't sell you anything - the record company does.
It's the record company that stumps up the cash for the latest remastering of whatever, and then tempts the buying audience with promises of improved sound quality, not that the majority of the target audience gives a rat's ass about improved sound quality.
And the record company has a contract with the artist whereby they pay the artist whatever percentage has been negotiated against volume of sales of a given body of work. It's usually in single figures.
Ironically enough, the artists that most sales are achieved by have been established for the longest period of time - I'm talking of The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc, do get involved in the remastering processes, but they're in the minority with respect to this activity.
As far as purchasing the latest remastered work is concerned I'd suggest that caveat emptor very much applies.
And I'd also suggest buying your music direct from the artist where possible - at least then they'd get a more tangible benefit from their work being up for sale at all.
I think Thom Yorke is more annoyed with Spotify paying the least amount of royalties it can.
He doesn't need the money, but a developing artist does.
And he sees Spotify as a greedy middleman.
That's a weak argument. Spotify pays artists royalties, torrent sites don't pay them a penny. It's not as if artists are forced to make their material available on Spotify, is it? Yorke is attacking the wrong target here. Besides, what about Grooveshark and every other streaming service? You don't hear Mr Egotistical having a go at them. Yorke is an utter pillock, pure and simple. Perhaps Thom Yorke and Morissey should get hitched, it would be a marriage made in heaven. Provide them with an all expenses paid honeymoon to a remote Pacific atoll and then nuke the b*stards!!! Succesful artists who whinge over money make me puke, they really do. It is particularly distasteful at this moment in time when ordinary people are struggling to afford to put food on the table... :steam:
Rothchild
16-10-2013, 07:25
I have a digital Tascam porta studio that in theory will give far better results than the best of seventies analogue studio gear, adequate mics are cheap, the only sticking point is finding somewhere large enough to set up and make some serious noise. I'm afraid the reasons there is less good music being made these days are
1) the talent isn't there to anything like the same degree.
2) it's all been done before .
You've kind of missed my point which was it was less about the recording media per-se but exactly about the bit you refer to as 'finding somewhere large enough to set up and make some serious noise'. What I was saying is that those places (by and large) don't exist anymore, let alone the budgets to pay people to live there to create and record a whole album.
However to add to that I'm not convinced that if we sent, say, Pink Floyd, your Tascam and a rake of contermporary cheap chinese condensor mics back in time and they recorded DSOTM to it (with all other things being the same, same room, same talent etc) that it would sound at least the same or better (I don'think it would sound bad as they had proper enginers and a proper room which is at least 75% of the final sound anyway but it wouldn't be the same).
I think the 'end of history' view in your list (no more talent, no more opportunities) is pretty dark. It may feel true for you but, really? in thirty / forty years the level of ability to create, inspire, innovate and be original has somehow fallen out of the gene pool? I know nostaligia isn't what it was ;-) but really?
magiccarpetride
17-10-2013, 20:46
I think you're targetting the wrong people.
The artist usually doesn't sell you anything - the record company does.
It's the record company that stumps up the cash for the latest remastering of whatever, and then tempts the buying audience with promises of improved sound quality, not that the majority of the target audience gives a rat's ass about improved sound quality.
And the record company has a contract with the artist whereby they pay the artist whatever percentage has been negotiated against volume of sales of a given body of work. It's usually in single figures.
Ironically enough, the artists that most sales are achieved by have been established for the longest period of time - I'm talking of The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin etc, do get involved in the remastering processes, but they're in the minority with respect to this activity.
As far as purchasing the latest remastered work is concerned I'd suggest that caveat emptor very much applies.
And I'd also suggest buying your music direct from the artist where possible - at least then they'd get a more tangible benefit from their work being up for sale at all.
True, and I agree. I am commenting on musicians' behaviour because it is them, not the record companies, who are complaining about those dwindling royalties. Why are record companies conspicuously silent about that if it's them who are always enjoying the lion's share?
Also, I find it interesting how no one seems to have any issues when consumers buy used CDs, but are very upset when consumers make a safety copy of the CD they've legitimately purchased. Doesn't make much sense, no?
bloody radiohead....next time you have a party put some of their music on.
party over!!!
bloody radiohead....next time you have a party put some of their music on.
party over!!!
Try inviting people with some taste next time...;)
stupinder
21-10-2013, 15:15
I have tried to give budding artists a chance to have a link from my site to any site they might have with music to listen to or download. The Merchant brothers were the only one who took up my offer. It's only a small way to get known, but if enough HIFI equipment dealers etc dedicated a page to new music and linked to new up and coming artists, the music world could be a better place.
Great idea and added to the Pig too - Lets see what the take up will be....there are a load of sites out there that already do this I should add...
stupinder
21-10-2013, 15:17
bloody radiohead....next time you have a party put some of their music on.
party over!!!
Yep, never a band I've really got on with...should try again I suppose! That said Thom Yorkes duet with Drugstore's Isabel Monteiro on El Presidente is very good indeed....
Yep, never a band I've really got on with...should try again I suppose! That said Thom Yorkes duet with Drugstore's Isabel Monteiro on El Presidente is very good indeed....
Try the last 3 albums, or Thom York's solo album, 'Kid A' and 'Amnesiac' were interesting but a little difficult and would indeed 'clear a party' as someday said in his earlier post, the last three have been a bit more upbeat...;)
losenotaminute
21-10-2013, 19:11
Try the last 3 albums, or Thom York's solo album, 'Kid A' and 'Amnesiac' were interesting but a little difficult and would indeed 'clear a party' as someday said in his earlier post, the last three have been a bit more upbeat...;)
A dilemma. I have never "got" Radiohead either, the few albums I have heard have been pretentious and unmusical. The easiest way I can listen to your recommendations and potentially go out and buy an LP is if I use Spotify, but surely Tom wouldn't like that......
Lawrence
A dilemma. I have never "got" Radiohead either, the few albums I have heard have been pretentious and unmusical. The easiest way I can listen to your recommendations and potentially go out and buy an LP is if I use Spotify, but surely Tom wouldn't like that......
Lawrence
If it wasn't for musical pretensions we'd still be listening to 'Greensleaves'...;)
Anyway each to their own
You're unlikely to hear much of their later material on 'Spotify', or Atoms for Peace, or FourTet for that matter...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23313445
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.