Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says...

[ariich]

People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?

I have no doubt at all that this will have been a prominent view put forward when recorded music first became readily and affordably available.

[DoctorAction]

I don't have anything else to add but just want to say this is a fascinating discussion. Loads of really interesting points.

[goo-goo]

I don't think bands have ever been able to make a living selling music.

This is pretty much it. They make money on touring, selling merch, other ventures. Back in the day, yes, money was made from selling music, but not that much. Record labels still got their cut in addition to the advances they gave artists (they acted more like a bank). But back in the day, people bought music. The 10 million or so copies that Michael Jackson sold, the 1-2 million from Madonna, etc. Now those numbers are not even close to the numbers in this era. So for 10 million albums sold, MJ could still get 1 mill after all advances and record label was paid off. But for a generational talent like MJ, there were hundreds of bands/artists trying to make it. And out of those bands, if you sold 2k copies, you would barely pay the record label advance and producers, etc, if at all.

I get that the Spotify (and streaming rates) are abysmal. Should the streaming rates be reviewed and increased? Absolutely. But bands/artists shouldn't expect to make a living from just streaming (pandemic issues aside, lack of touring). Spotify has filed to be publicly traded. Maybe artists should get a dividend of some sort...I don't know.

In my opinion, the best way to get paid being a musician is keep your music and do all of it yourself.  There are plenty of current artists that do this: Plini has been very successful, Lights in Motion, Dave Kerzner, Marillion, Steve Vai, Animals as Leaders, Periphery, etc...It seems musicians like being signed to a record label and think that they will get them to the next level, but then they realize it was their biggest mistake and the label didn't help them at all. That old model of being signed to a label was flawed back then, and it's still flawed today (unless it's just a distribution deal). Right now it's harder to be a band/artists, but there is absolutely more opportunities to make a decent living making music.

[SjundeInseglet]

People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?

I suppose you're being facetious but, unless you're not much of a music fan to begin with (or for some reason dislike social events of any kind), there is a myriad of reasons for a person to both buy recorded music and go see live music. There's nothing like the rush of being at a live gig, having a shared experience with everyone who's attending the show (Warr guitar and Chapman Stick player Trey Gunn wrote a very interesting blog entry many, many moons ago on this very subject after he had what he described as a shared extending listening moment with someone he didn't know at a Johann Johannsson concert), feeding that collective energy to the musicians up on stage and getting it back through the music that is being played. Even though a lot of acts do tend to perform their music live exactly as it was recorded in the studio (or, at the very least, play it as close as possible to the recorded version), there are many others that prefer to deliver alternative renditions of their songs/pieces live or that play them with a different arrangement or some sort of variation. Also, there are many musical genres (such as jazz and numerous types of world music, for instance) that rely heavily on improvisation so there's no chance in those cases that the music that is played live will ever sound like an exact replica of the recorded version of it (if such version even exists).

[The Walrus]

People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?

I suppose you're being facetious but, unless you're not much of a music fan to begin with (or for some reason dislike social events of any kind), there is a myriad of reasons for a person to both buy recorded music and go see live music. There's nothing like the rush of being at a live gig, having a shared experience with everyone who's attending the show (Warr guitar and Chapman Stick player Trey Gunn wrote a very interesting blog entry many, many moons ago on this very subject after he had what he described as a shared extending listening moment with someone he didn't know at a Johann Johannsson concert), feeding that collective energy to the musicians up on stage and getting it back through the music that is being played. Even though a lot of acts do tend to perform their music live exactly as it was recorded in the studio (or, at the very least, play it as close as possible to the recorded version), there are many others that prefer to deliver alternative renditions of their songs/pieces live or that play them with a different arrangement or some sort of variation. Also, there are many musical genres (such as jazz and numerous types of world music, for instance) that rely heavily on improvisation so there's no chance in those cases that the music that is played live will ever sound like an exact replica of the recorded version of it (if such version even exists).

I was indeed being facetious, my dude

FYI I have almost no interest in experiencing live music personally but that's just me

[Ben_Jamin]

People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?

Sounds better on my cellphone

[Elite]

The 'what is (the purpose of) music' discussion is going to be a difficult one, but I merely posted the questions initially as food for thought, not necessarily to comment on further.

Re: 'art vs commerce' - this one vould also lead to a terrible discussion about quality in art, and how we as consumers, should value it.

Most of what I have been saying though were observations on how I don't think the general public doesn't value recorded (this is the important word here!) music at all. Yes, people are willing to go to concerts to experience music, they will buy merchandise from their favourite acts, but as long as the idea that music should be free exists (and I said previously in this thread that I think it's too late to turn that around), the majority of people will not take the act of selling music seriously.

[Ben_Jamin]

Getting paid for music began, when a guy with an instrument played outside and people just started giving him money. 

[Stadler]

The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.

This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical ) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.

That actually BURNS me.  I'm "that guy".  I have the three different mixes of Rainbow Rising.  I have two mixes of Nektar's a Tab In The Ocean.   I have both the US and UK mix of Whitesnake's "Slide It In".   Too often, the services give you what the artist is willing to license to you at that time.  So for a while there, every time you wanted to hear "Crazy Train", you got Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo instead of Lee Kerslake and Bob Daisley.  No thanks, amigo.

[The Walrus]

I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life  Am I missing something?

[Elite]

Getting paid for music began, when a guy with an instrument played outside and people just started giving him money. 

Not really. It had more to do with the (rich) aristocracy in Europe paying groups or solo musicians as a form of entertainment. Keep in mind hearing music was much more exclusive back then, because you needed to physically have someone who could perform music near you in order to even hear it.

Of course there were amateur musicians playing in pubs ('minstrels') or on the streets as well.

[Stadler]

I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life  Am I missing something?

In 2002, in response to accusations from Bob Daisley (and perhaps a lawsuit; I forget the timing), Ozzy - well, Sharon, if you believe the reporting - had Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo go in and "recreate" the drum and bass tracks so that they wouldn't have to pay Bob royalties.  For a couple years, the CD versions (at least) had those "recreations".   Honestly, if you lived and breathed "Diary Of A Madman" you could tell, but it wasn't like they were now "disco versions" or anything.  Ozzy actually publicly admitted it was a mistake and at some point they went back to the originals (though for the compilations "The Essential Ozzy" and "Prince Of Darkness", they were the re-recorded versions.)

[The Walrus]

I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life  Am I missing something?

In 2002, in response to accusations from Bob Daisley (and perhaps a lawsuit; I forget the timing), Ozzy - well, Sharon, if you believe the reporting - had Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo go in and "recreate" the drum and bass tracks so that they wouldn't have to pay Bob royalties.  For a couple years, the CD versions (at least) had those "recreations".   Honestly, if you lived and breathed "Diary Of A Madman" you could tell, but it wasn't like they were now "disco versions" or anything.  Ozzy actually publicly admitted it was a mistake and at some point they went back to the originals (though for the compilations "The Essential Ozzy" and "Prince Of Darkness", they were the re-recorded versions.)

Oh, I knew about that, but I just never could tell the difference between the versions I listened to on Spotify, the version on the CD, and the version I hear on the radio at work. Can you really tell by just listening? I always assumed the original version - the one on the radio - was always on Spotify.

[Stadler]

I've had Spotify for 8 years and as far as I'm aware I've always been able to listen to (what I always thought was) Crazy Train. Sounds like the same version of the song I've heard on the radio all my life  Am I missing something?

In 2002, in response to accusations from Bob Daisley (and perhaps a lawsuit; I forget the timing), Ozzy - well, Sharon, if you believe the reporting - had Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo go in and "recreate" the drum and bass tracks so that they wouldn't have to pay Bob royalties.  For a couple years, the CD versions (at least) had those "recreations".   Honestly, if you lived and breathed "Diary Of A Madman" you could tell, but it wasn't like they were now "disco versions" or anything.  Ozzy actually publicly admitted it was a mistake and at some point they went back to the originals (though for the compilations "The Essential Ozzy" and "Prince Of Darkness", they were the re-recorded versions.)

Oh, I knew about that, but I just never could tell the difference between the versions I listened to on Spotify, the version on the CD, and the version I hear on the radio at work. Can you really tell by just listening? I always assumed the original version - the one on the radio - was always on Spotify.

i think you can.  It's got a similar sound, but it's flatter, if that makes sense.  You play, so I think you can tell if you had them side-by-side.   As I said, though, it's not like this is now a Dance remix.

[The Walrus]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[TAC]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Oh, it's a bad thing alright.

[The Walrus]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Oh, it's a bad thing alright.

You don't like anything that isn't vocals/bass/guitar/drums. Trust me, we get it. Go back to Cheap Trick and Whitesnake or whatever your generation likes

[Ben_Jamin]

Haha...And if you had the files ripped from the cd or digital download, you could put them on audacity and actually do a side by side comparison. Just pan one left and one right.

[TAC]

Here's a relevant video by the singer from Lords Of The Trident. Who the f#&k is that?
They are a metal band from the Midwest. They come off as pretty cheesy, but they have chops, and the singer has pipes. I love them and have bought all of their albums using both Amazon and Bandcamp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KavwrjBsOhU


LOTT have done a tone of youtube/facebook thingies over the last few months. The drunken quarantine karaoke videos have been hilarious.

[Progmetty]

^ That dude is funny and makes a lot of good points, I subscribed to his channel and checking out the music, thanks for sharing man.

[TAC]

^ That dude is funny and makes a lot of good points, I subscribed to his channel and checking out the music, thanks for sharing man.

This is my favorite song by them.. Shattered Skies

They're a bit Hammerfallish, but they have a sense of humor about them. They're pretty easy on the ears.

[Progmetty]

That's pretty good, I don't know Hammerfall but their vibe is kinda reminiscent of an ancient band I liked back in college called Rhapsody of Fire, probably the fantasy elements.
Everybody here probably already knows; it's good to let the ads run their full length when you check out bands like that on youtube. A youtuber I know told me they don't get revenue from it if you skip it, so I just mute it and do something else while they run.

[Progmetty]

Here's a question I was gonna pose at the Haken thread but thought it may be relevant to the discussion here.
I'm trying to buy their live CD/DVD release. Generally, with relatively smaller bands, I like to buy releases by going to their website and seeing how they want me to buy it, as oppose to just straight from Amazon.
Haken's website, as does a lot of bands, redirected me to another website for merch called Omerch.
Now that release, entitled L-1VE, will cost me $42 shipping included, if I bought it from Omerch. And 20$ if I bought it from Amazon.
Does the doubled price mean that the Omerch website shares more of my money with Haken? Or is the $42 actual cost for the release and shipping while Amazon's $20 is a matter of Amazon being the virtual Walmart and crushing competition just cause they can afford it?
Largely naive question, I know and I have a feeling I already know the answer. But I don't like to lean on my assumptions only because they sound logical to me.

[jingle.boy]

Along the lines of Rich's commentary that the industry as a whole is getting same/more money as in past decades, but artists are getting less.  Someone mentioned that the ease of recording and producing music has increased the amount of acts and music out there.  I would also posit that the Information Age has also allowed for more exposure, and it has flattened the distribution of the consumer spend.  What I mean is that, in the 80s, my music purchasing habits were limited by what I heard on the 5 radio stations I heard in my market, what had friends tell me about, or things I read about in Hit Parader or Kerrang or whatever other pubs I remember from the day.  I probably had a catalogue of about 100 bands, 98% of which were US/Canada/UK acts, and most of which were household names to some extent.

Nowadays, I've been exposed to all different kinds of acts, from all different areas of the world.  So, while I'm still spending the same kind of money I would, it's getting spread out over many more acts because the Interwebz allows me to know of and hear about them.  Now I've got a catalogue of a couple thousand acts, so my dollars spent are spread a little thinner to each individual artist.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but I think this is a factor as well.

[goo-goo]

Here's a question I was gonna pose at the Haken thread but thought it may be relevant to the discussion here.
I'm trying to buy their live CD/DVD release. Generally, with relatively smaller bands, I like to buy releases by going to their website and seeing how they want me to buy it, as oppose to just straight from Amazon.
Haken's website, as does a lot of bands, redirected me to another website for merch called Omerch.
Now that release, entitled L-1VE, will cost me $42 shipping included, if I bought it from Omerch. And 20$ if I bought it from Amazon.
Does the doubled price mean that the Omerch website shares more of my money with Haken? Or is the $42 actual cost for the release and shipping while Amazon's $20 is a matter of Amazon being the virtual Walmart and crushing competition just cause they can afford it?
Largely naive question, I know and I have a feeling I already know the answer. But I don't like to lean on my assumptions only because they sound logical to me.

Omerch is in Europe. So if you are trying to get the CD/DVD to the US, the shipping charges will be considerable higher. Right now, the cheapest options to ship to the US are prohibited. Only priority/urgent packages are being shipped. Places like Germany are not shipping to the US at all.

[ZirconBlue]

People buying recorded music was the real death of music. Who would want to see live music when they can just listen to the song over and over at home?

At one time (>100 years ago), recordings were seen as a promotion to sell sheet music. 

[HOF]

Reminder that Bandcamp is waiving it's revenue share today (Friday) if there is anything you've been waiting to pick up (or download as it were).

[TAC]

Bought this album:



https://bloodytyrantband.bandcamp.com/album/myths-of-the-islands

Definitely worth the $7

[Tomislav95]

I bought Pursuit of the Sun & Allure of the Earth by Woods of Ypres, album I adore, for only $10 + $2 shipping. I would buy some more stuff but shipping for most stuff is at least equal the price of CD. Europeans, what are some sites you buy CDs from that have lower shipping rates? Even Amazon shipping is too pricey... I often end up buying used CDs because I can't find CD + shipping for under around $30.

[ytserush]

Spend no money for Spotify and buy direct to the artists.  Screw this guy.

Been doing that for almost 20 years now. Independent and direct has been the way to go since Napster.

[ytserush]

Dee Snider ripped him to shreds too. I am a proud non-streamer. Buy physical, if available. Digital, if no other options. Never stream.

Do you ever listen to something before you buy it? If someone recommends something, do you simply buy it unheard?

Depends on who it is and what kind of track record they have with me.  My days of finding smaller needles in bigger haystacks have long since passed.   When this COVID thing is sorted, one of the first things I'm doing is going from A to Z in a record store. (If there re any left!)

[ytserush]

People have been listening to "free music" for a long time. It's called FM radio.

And if Spoitify wants to make more money then sell ads just like radio does.

[ytserush]

There is no real money to be made from music, unless (or until) you are an established artist with a fan-base that's willing to spend money on your products. Note I'm saying 'products' here and not necessarly 'music'.

Yes but how is that different to what has always been the case?

You have a chart that shows the amount of money over time invested by labels and tech platforms in recording artists and bands?

[ytserush]

Another wrinkle in all of this. I'm probably not the only one here who has built up a large portion of their music collection buying used CDs. I've never felt particularly bad about it, but it's not much different from streaming. Someone acquired the rights to the product and then legally is selling it without the artist getting a cut. There are some artists who I've gone on to really love and support because I was able to find them for the (relatively) low cost of a used CD. At the same time, I'm sure there are many who have never gotten any money from me despite me having and enjoying their music.

Good point.  But I'd guess (and it is just a guess) that many artists would have made more money from the initial CD sale than they would from streaming.

[ytserush]

You're preaching to (my) choir on the "holding something" but don't make the mistake:  the ownership of the WORK is no different.  You (and I; I have something like 30,000 songs on my iPod and at MOST 100 are down-load only) own a piece of plastic.  WE DO NOT OWN THE WORK.  We have a license for it.   So do the people that download, or that listen on Spotify.   The licenses are slightly different, but not materially.

I'm sorry, I get the love for our artists, but I really don't see the basis for the hyperbole of Spotify "killing" anything.

Music can be be pulled from any platform for any reason with ease.  I don't immediately see a scenario where someone is coming to my house for my CD.