A breakdown of why I wish all folks - consumers and rights holders alike - would boycott companies such as Spotify and Pandora until fairer laws are in place: Why is Spotify any different than listening to the radio? Because long ago, laws and regulations were put into place that obligate terrestrial radio stations to pay into licensing fees. This is not cheap for that station. They then make detailed records of the music they play (during reporting terms) and those fees, which were paid to Performance Rights Organizations, such as BMI or SESAC, then pay the rights holders of that music. Who are these rights holders? Typically, theyre the songwriters and publishers of that music. Companies who stream music are not governed by those laws. Awhile after streaming technology became available, it was obvious that rates and fees needed to be established in order to pay the artists. Its only fair, right? However, the model required of terrestrial stations was not the model the powers that be determined would apply to streaming stations. Let me give you a real life ferinstance of the model used (incidentally, no artist representative was present when this rate was being determined): My single Hurricane has received 16,425 documented streams. For those 16,425 streams, I have been paid roughly $20. I am the sole copyright holder of that single. I paid approximately $5,000 to create that one song (not including the money spent to press CDs, pay a photographer, an album designer, a make up artist and hair stylist, single promotion, etc.) Hurricane was enjoyed 16,425 times and, for that, Ive earned back $20 of the $5,000 I put toward its creation. And Im lucky in that I dont have to split that earning, though I am responsible for making sure the songwriter (my dad) receives his royalties. Performers dont receive radio royalties, anyway, so whats the deal? Right. Unless the performer is also the songwriter, neither he nor his label (if there is one) is paid for radio play. At least not directly. But heres how the model was successful: radio advertised an artists music and made the listener aware that it existed. If that listener wanted to be able to listen to music at will anytime, anyplace, or if he wanted the music from the rest of the album, he would have to purchase the project. That purchase is where the label - the entity who paid the tens of thousands of dollars to create this music - would get paid. The performer would then build in popularity and go on tour, which is where he earned his pay. Im fully understanding that with time comes technology comes change to current models. The issue here is that, within this streaming frame, there is nowhere for the artist or label to logistically get paid. With a service such as Spotify, the listener is able to stream the music of his choice. Gone are the incentives to buy the record or even the single. Its available right there at the listeners will completely free of charge. One of the alleged benefits of Spotify when it first came onto the scene was that it would be the catalyst for the artists music to be heard by an almost limitless audience, which would then, theoretically, increase album sales. If that were actually happening, would we continue to see declining record sales across all genres? It doesnt add up. The numbers are saying that listeners are foregoing buying the album and streaming it, instead. I pay a subscription to Spotify, so Im supporting the artist. First, let me be clear that Im not wanting this to be an artist vs. consumer issue. Thats not my take-home here. My main beef is with the companies who have become filthy stinking rich off the backs and dimes and creations of other people who are seeing only a fraction of a cent in return. When you pay your $10 a month to Spotify, theyre swapping revenue they once gained from you through paid advertisement for your monthly payment. You now can listen commercial-free. Ads and subscriptions are their revenue. *Their* revenue. It does not impact what Spotify will pay the artist for the use of his music. I will ask you, If you are a chronic listener of a certain artist/album, do you feel a moral obligation to show your support by paying for this good? I think Spotify would be a valuable tool if listens were limited and royalties were fair. A real consequence we face, here, is that the quality of the art is ultimately going to suffer. Artists will leave the business. Labels will fold. Well be left with a lower and lower standard of music as a result. If you value beautiful music, it must be appreciated as a valuable thing. If its so bad, why is Taylor Swift the only artist pulling away? I cant answer that because, a) it really is baffling and, b) I can only speak for myself. Im on Spotify. Ive said that already. Im torn as to whether or not its the right thing. The thing is, theres a pressure to be present on these platforms. For an artist at my level, it says, Im in with big name, established company. I imagine for someone at, say, Florida Georgia Lines level (who share a label with Taylor Swift, by the way), the pressure is about not angering a fickle fan who has grown accustomed to free access. Why can Taylor Swift do it, then? Because shes Taylor fricking Swift. Shes one of the few artists still going platinum, still selling records. Her fans already put their money where their mouths are and theyre fiercely loyal. Those are two luxuries she has earned that afford her choices the vast majority dont have. An artist like me wouldnt even cause a ripple if I pulled my music. If artists like Beyonce, Kanye West, Miranda Lambert, etc, followed in her footsteps, wed see big changes to this game. The only people who hold more sway than the top tier artists are the actual listeners. Let me say that again: The only people who hold more sway than the top tier artists are the actual listeners. Even if lobbies to increase pay rates are unsuccessful from now until the end of time, personally opting to pay for the music we want to hear preserves the integrity of the art of music. Im saying this, not as just an artist, but as a consumer, myself. Look, I am not rich. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I have to choose my spending wisely (which includes my own money out of my own pocket to create the music I hope to share by selling). Its not a light choice to log into iTunes and download an album or walk over to a merch table and buy a CD. I get it. But that doesnt entitle me to getting it for free just because I can. And its not inherently moral just because its legal. We all must make that difficult choice to pay for what we could easily get for free. Those are my thoughts. I own them. I stand by and am passionate about them because I make music, I love music, and I love music-makers. This is not a case of artists going into new technology kicking and screaming. Our art is being pillaged for someone else gain. Please, just dont help them. Listen to Spotify. Keep Your subscription. Buy the music you return to more than three or four times. Free is never truly free. If this continues, a price will be paid.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 20:55:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015