Chad Taylor's thoughts on streaming services, Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music etc. Options

[dangum]

Chad Taylor
17 hrs · Edited ·

Taylor Swift opened the discussion but she didn't go far enough.

Spotify and Apple, as well as nearly every single steaming service, has borrowed heavily from the old .99¢ tape clubs when vinyl albums and cassette tapes ruled the day. ‘Join our service, get a large volume of free music, and hopefully you’ll stick around a buy some too!’

Artists weren't paid anything for those deals as they were carved out as promotional tools. Yes, we gave up our royalties but it represented a very small percentage of global music distribution in exchange for building new fans. In the case of Apple, Pandora and Spotify they're not a small carve out or a promotional tool, they represent the majority of the digital marketplace. It's not some small sliver of royalty based revenues, and it's not being run as a promotional platform, except to the extent that our music fueling sales of their hardware - computers, MP3 players, cell phones, headphones, Bluetooth speakers, and even those pesky monthly subscription fees for your digital streaming (conveniently packaged to keep these "transactions" above board)!

In my thirty-years as a professional musician, I've never seen a more upside-down environment when it comes to the exploitation of an artists music for corporate purposes. This is really saying something given the excessive money-grab of the compact disc heyday of record company profitability. In fact, the same methodology of was applied to music catalogs and royalties for the then revolutionary compact disc. Artists were told, ‘this is just an experimental product for us.’ The labels charged music consumers double and cut artist royalties in half. Suddenly the vast catalog of a music label was reborn, revisited, repackaged and sold for record profits - who else bought a Chess Records box set? - I did. In today’s marketplace, digital steaming represents an even great cut into artist royalty rates.

No one could have imagined that the decadent ride of the compact disc era could be replaced by one that would only drive musicians further underground. Steve Jobs did the unthinkable, he stole decades of hard work by fooling record companies into thinking that his iPod was just another media device (MP3 players had been around). Those suckers gave it away, but now they've taken their lumps and they're smart enough to know to get in on the action.

The streaming music providers are both public and private companies that have recently earned multi-billion dollar valuations, based primarily on their ability to deliver vast volumes of content in the form of their music catalogs. The record labels have done nothing to ensure that artists receive fair royalty rates as the labels remuneration has been through equity/stock, and the rapid growth potential of these stocks. Who gives a shit if their artists earn any money as long as the valuations of their own companies/investments increase?

Note that the labels flattened themselves out during the digital downturn, letting thousands of music loving employees (the real backbone of the industry) hit the unemployment lines. So many great people, who helped build careers like mine were simply hung out to dry.

The exchange between the labels and the new digital distributors is fairly simple; the label grants access to its catalog of music to the digital streaming service for a very low "industry standard" rate, in return they'll receive preferred equity in the new content platform. The artists, who are bound by long term contracts, have no say in the deal and the labels have successfully argued that they purchased (intended or not) the right to do this type of transaction.

The record companies are only contractually obligated to get their artists fair market value in terms of a royalty rates for new experimental technology, and even then it can be discounted to seek new methods and mediums of distribution (read Spotify, Apple, Compact Disc or eight-tracks). The labels themselves cut these not-so-artist-friendly deals because they see little to no upside in fighting for higher royalty rates when the real profitability is baked into the stock acquisition.

The labels are not offering artists any of the stock because the record deals were negotiated long before streaming music or stock swaps were a consideration. The only artists in recent memory to beat this system are Dr Dre and Trent Reznor when they sold Beats to Apple (nice job gents - you win).

I gave up on earning any portion of my income through royalties due to this system. I encourage young artists to stay far away from a label system that has no interest in their well-being or for that matter the well-being of music in general. This isn't to say that artist development isn't important, it's just not worth the cost of doing business with a label that can, and most likely will sell you down the river.

The labels themselves are under huge pressure to maintain earnings in a shrinking market, so you can't blame them for seeking these investment opportunities (capitalism is what it is). Regardless, this practice is at the expense of the artists that built their success in the first place. Labels didn't protect their copyrights, negatively impacting artists but the silver lining for the labels was the global enterprise value of the content within their control. There is no silver lining for artists.

If you want to support the arts, get involved when artists offer you direct sales opportunities because at least then you know the most basic details of the transaction.

Streaming music might be easy on the consumer but make no mistake, some emerging artist is suffering while massive corporations are reaping the rewards of the next IPO or increase in market share.

In closing, I'd also say that I'm not complaining. I saw the writing on the wall and was able to diversify my personal interests and financial stability into other fields. It gives me a unique perspective to ponder just how hard it would be to make a living from music sales alone. I see how corrupt and self serving the label system is today, and I also see how it's pretty simple to turn on a streaming music service and get access to nearly everything. You just have to know that it comes at a cost, whether your paying for it or not.

https://www.facebook.com/officialchadtaylor...4584750243956:0

[ThrowgnCpr]

I agree with his thoughts on streaming services. To be fair though, Live hasn't been trying to take advantage of the market at all. Since they're running their own label now, they could have easily offered direct sale of high-resolution digital media files. Offering digital sales only through iTunes or Amazon is just buying into the circus.

[Bremang]

What about pledge

[ThrowgnCpr]

What about pledge

Yeah, they did that, but it was probably a tiny fraction of their sales. My point is that it isn't exactly fair to bitch about a system that they chose to opt into, especially when they haven't really been attempting to promote or sell the album through other outlets (hi-res digital downloads, vinyl, etc.). No one forced his hand and said they had to participate in Spotify or similar streaming services. There are plenty of artists who have flat out said no (Radiohead for example). If you don't like the system, don't participate in it, and then whine about it.

Don't take this the wrong way, I really like The Turn, and I want them to be happy with how it is received, but they marketed it pretty poorly...

[Bremang]

Radiohead have all their albums and b-sides on Spotify, minus in rainbows. I'm guessing Live didn't advertise more because it probably wouldn't have been worth it financially.

[ThrowgnCpr]

Radiohead have all their albums and b-sides on Spotify, minus in rainbows. I'm guessing Live didn't advertise more because it probably wouldn't have been worth it financially.

Radiohead didn't have any of their self-released stuff on there, so I'm surprised that King of Limbs is now included. They don't own the rights to earlier releases (Capitol Records), so it's no surprise to see them on Spotify. Thom Yorke has vocally opposed these streaming services, and his solo material and the Atoms for Peace albums still aren't streaming.

I agree, that a big advertising campaign may not have been successful for Live, but the point still stands that you can't really bitch about a service that you are voluntarily participating in. Don't like how Spotify runs their business? Don't give your music to Spotify...

[Bremang]

Well, I guess the obvious question would be why Chad decided to go with Spotify. He did not expand on that at all which seems contradictory, but I guess there must have been a reason for it. Still, he tried to qualify his criticism by saying he wasn't complaining personally. It seems like the main point of the message was just to inform the public about how to support an artist today, and to set expectations for new artists who are considering labels and streaming services.

[ThrowgnCpr]

I'm sure he went with Spotify just to stay competitive and to market the album. Which is why I found it a little funny that he complained about it, considering he had full control over the album rights.

I get it though, and I agree, the spotify market is much the same as the old Napster dilemma. Depending on how you view your music/finances, it can be seen as a win or a loss. I'd say for nobody artists, it is great to get your music in front of an audience. Same goes for those who really don't care if they make money off if it. However, for those trying to pay the bills with their music, it sucks, hard. Artists are the only ones who can change the game though. Which is why, even though I could give two shits about Taylor Swift's music, I respect her for having the balls to call Apple out on their bullshit (same topic) last week.

[Bremang]

Basically everyone should have realized by 1997 that recorded music is free for consumers. Almost 20 years later and some people are still trying to pay for music and make money off of it.

[dangum]

I can understand why artists have reservations about allowing their music to be added to Spotify.

I recently registered a free account. When I access Spotify on my iPad there's never any advertising, I can skip songs as often as I like, I can create my own playlists and pick and choose the albums or tracks I want to listen on demand. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to purchase a subscription.

In my opinion streaming services devalue music. Artists have been coerced by their record labels to contribute their music to these services and although it's great for the consumer to have a smorgasbord of music to listen to, most artists get a raw deal. I guess artists will need to find other ways to make a living from their music - be it though more touring, sponsorship, providing tracks for advertising, selling concert recordings etc. It certainly is harder these days.

I just checked which Live albums are available on Spotify. All of Live's albums (including the Paradiso show) are included but 'The Turn' is no longer there.

[Bremang]

The Turn is still available to me in the US.

Could they have taken it down in Australia while they're touring there?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 4 2015, 2:16 pm

[ThrowgnCpr]

I recently registered a free account. When I access Spotify on my iPad there's never any advertising, I can skip songs as often as I like, I can create my own playlists and pick and choose the albums or tracks I want to listen on demand. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to purchase a subscription.

new users are given a free premium trial for 1-3 months when they first sign up. You'll get lots of advertisements after your trial runs out. I have had a premium subscription for several months now, but I also buy a lot of physical media (records), so streaming isn't the only way I support musicians (because it doesn't really support them...)

I just checked which Live albums are available on Spotify. All of Live's albums (including the Paradiso show) are included but 'The Turn' is no longer there.

As Bremang said, The Turn is still available in the US. They may be changing the availability of the record, and it varies by country and market. They don't own the rights to their previous albums, so I suspect the major label will keep them on streaming services.