Ableton Forum

ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends wrote: "they don't allow you to do anything with your music."

What do you understand that to mean?

BaronVonAbelDong wrote:

ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends wrote: "they don't allow you to do anything with your music."

What do you understand that to mean?

I think this is what happens when PR speak tries to frame a sensible position in a way that offends no-one.

If you read between the lines, then I think her/her lables position is not so different from the one I described.

If you have Spotify, why still buy CDs?!

And I think this also answers the question that Stromkraft asked. Spotify is meant to replace CD sales and should therefore be viewed as a substitute for that revenue stream. That it still apparently pays out less than more traditional radio like services, is just adding insult to insult

TomViolenz wrote:

BaronVonAbelDong wrote:

ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends wrote: "they don't allow you to do anything with your music."

What do you understand that to mean?

I think this is what happens when PR speak tries to frame a sensible position in a way that offends no-one.

If you read between the lines, then I think her/her lables position is not so different from the one I described.

If you have Spotify, why still buy CDs?!

And I think this also answers the question that Stromkraft asked. Spotify is meant to replace CD sales and should therefore be viewed as a substitute for that revenue stream. That it still apparently pays out less than more traditional radio like services, is just adding insult to insult

I get that perspective, sure.

What I don't get is how it could ever pay out what regular radio does as it's a different structure. Radio can only play a certain amount of music in any given timeframe. It's one stream for many listeners, so they can work out payments at a fixed fee.

With Spotify being one stream per listener, and no idea how much each listener uses the service for the coming month, the rates fluctuate. It's a bit odd that the more one listens to Spotify, the more the amount in the revenue pot gets watered down between all artists.

Their solution is to get more subscribers and revenue goes up... but the more the new subscribers listen, the more the income is divided. It's a complicated model for sure, but one that works for the consumer... and that's the hurdle I guess no?

I'm unsure we can now convince people that have never paid for music, to start paying for it. Whereas everyone knows they can't get a T-shirt for free yet.

If Spotify and all 'legit' streaming is boycotted and finally stops. Do we also need YouTube to stop? Are you saying that you definitely would prefer the file sharing sites and 'pirating' and random sales still? I know you mentioned it initially.

She got the publicity she/the label wanted, that's for sure.

BaronVonAbelDong wrote:

TomViolenz wrote:

BaronVonAbelDong wrote: What do you understand that to mean?

I think this is what happens when PR speak tries to frame a sensible position in a way that offends no-one.

If you read between the lines, then I think her/her lables position is not so different from the one I described.

If you have Spotify, why still buy CDs?!

And I think this also answers the question that Stromkraft asked. Spotify is meant to replace CD sales and should therefore be viewed as a substitute for that revenue stream. That it still apparently pays out less than more traditional radio like services, is just adding insult to insult

I get that perspective, sure.

What I don't get is how it could ever pay out what regular radio does as it's a different structure. Radio can only play a certain amount of music in any given timeframe. It's one stream for many listeners, so they can work out payments at a fixed fee.

With Spotify being one stream per listener, and no idea how much each listener uses the service for the coming month, the rates fluctuate. It's a bit odd that the more one listens to Spotify, the more the amount in the revenue pot gets watered down between all artists.

Their solution is to get more subscribers and revenue goes up... but the more the new subscribers listen, the more the income is divided. It's a complicated model for sure, but one that works for the consumer... and that's the hurdle I guess no?

I was talking about the experience for the consumer.
What accounting difficulties Spotify may have is of no interest to me.

I'm unsure we can now convince people that have never paid for music, to start paying for it. Whereas everyone knows they can't get a T-shirt for free yet.

On the day I can get T-shirts and everything else I need (I don't want much really) for free, I stop having a problem with giving out my music for free too.

But that's called Socialism and is very unlikely to happen.

If Spotify and all 'legit' streaming is boycotted and finally stops. Do we also need YouTube to stop? Are you saying that you definitely would prefer the file sharing sites and 'pirating' and random sales still? I know you mentioned it initially.

Correct! In the case I decided I wanted money for my art, I rather have the person who listens to it for free know that he didn't yet pay his dues, than to get chump change, enrich someone else and make that person believe that he did in fact already pay his dues.

In the case I didn't want money for my art, I rather give it out freely under my terms, which means not being part of an all you can eat buffet.

She got the publicity she/the label wanted, that's for sure.

Good! I hope everyone was listening!

TomViolenz wrote: What accounting difficulties Spotify may have is of no interest to me.

My point was not about accounting issues (that's a tangent) so much as it seems the streaming model is here and not going anywhere soon. I can't say for sure, but that appears to be the case.

So surely, how they and other companies can increase revenue paid to an artist, per stream is of great relevance to this discussion? I'm sure we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it was possible to make a basic living from Spotify, and only streaming because you would feel fairly compensated, whatever that means to you and your situation.

In any pay structure, the popular win, the mediocre struggle and the uninteresting are forced to find something else. I guess the painful part with streaming is that threshold got dramatically lowered.

...and the music vs t-shirt thing... A t-shirt is not delivered via a secondary medium. The T-Shirt is the product. It's price is governed by the chain of process and events that lead to it being sold.

Apply that to music and you are saying your album is only worth the medium that it's delivered by? The cost of a CD plus it's agreed markup?

What's the actual music worth? If it takes a year to create an album, is that worth more than one that takes a week? Is it based on how many people like it? (That's back to Spotify pricing though : ) ).

How do you price music?

No one is ever charging for the music itself. Not at concerts, not on physical media, not in any situation I can think of. Streaming is possibly the closest, you are paying for the right to listen to it on demand, still not the music itself.

It's like if a T-shirt was free but you paid for the box it came in, and now people have found a cheaper box to use.

How can you attach worth to something that is invisible and people are being taught that accessing it is free?

I agree with your views, but I still haven't read/heard/found a practical solution or suggestion that doesn't involve socialism or society and taxes changing beyond recognition.

How about for the next year or two?

ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends wrote:A week after Taylor Swift..."

When you quote is also useful to supply the link or if there isn't one name the source publication.

I have a few people I know of doing kickstarters for their new albums. What do you guys think of this model? It's fanbased more or less, so I suppose this means you must have a following that knows who you are for it to work.

Stromkraft wrote:I have a few people I know of doing kickstarters for their new albums. What do you guys think of this model? It's fanbased more or less, so I suppose this means you must have a following that knows who you are for it to work.

I mentioned this before. I also would be interested to hear of personal experiences with this model.
I think it could be a good model, Spotify or not.

But it does open up the chicken/egg problem too. How to get fans to fund an album, if you don't have the fans to fund and album yet.

So step 1.) in this scheme is still missing.

But that step is the hardest one anyways, right?!

For example how do you get people to your gigs, if no one knows who you are.

BaronVonAbelDong wrote:

TomViolenz wrote: What accounting difficulties Spotify may have is of no interest to me.

My point was not about accounting issues (that's a tangent) so much as it seems the streaming model is here and not going anywhere soon. I can't say for sure, but that appears to be the case.

But is it?!
If it is not scaleable for Spotify and not sustainable for artists?!

If they only pay peanuts to artists, have already 18% of the market and yet make no profit?!
Why should that model last?!

So surely, how they and other companies can increase revenue paid to an artist, per stream is of great relevance to this discussion? I'm sure we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it was possible to make a basic living from Spotify, and only streaming because you would feel fairly compensated, whatever that means to you and your situation.

In any pay structure, the popular win, the mediocre struggle and the uninteresting are forced to find something else. I guess the painful part with streaming is that threshold got dramatically lowered.

The answer was to the question, if it should be treated like radio or like CD sales. The experience Spotify is trying to surplant for the consumer is the one from owning CDs (all of them actualy), not radio, because you can listen to any song you choose anytime and anywhere and are not forced to listen to someone elses programming.

That this makes it hard for Spotify to pay its bills just shows that they made their price so low, that they don't only price artists and everyone else out of the market, but also themselves.
This has all the usual signs of a ponzi scheme.
I hope that bankruptcy soon follows and that I can utter a heartfelt Nelson Ha Ha.

TomViolenz wrote:

BaronVonAbelDong wrote:

TomViolenz wrote: What accounting difficulties Spotify may have is of no interest to me.

My point was not about accounting issues (that's a tangent) so much as it seems the streaming model is here and not going anywhere soon. I can't say for sure, but that appears to be the case.

But is it?!
If it is not scaleable for Spotify and not sustainable for artists?!

If they only pay peanuts to artists, have already 18% of the market and yet make no profit?!
Why should that model last?!

So surely, how they and other companies can increase revenue paid to an artist, per stream is of great relevance to this discussion? I'm sure we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it was possible to make a basic living from Spotify, and only streaming because you would feel fairly compensated, whatever that means to you and your situation.

In any pay structure, the popular win, the mediocre struggle and the uninteresting are forced to find something else. I guess the painful part with streaming is that threshold got dramatically lowered.

The answer was to the question, if it should be treated like radio or like CD sales. The experience Spotify is trying to surplant for the consumer is the one from owning CDs (all of them actualy), not radio, because you can listen to any song you choose anytime and anywhere and are not forced to listen to someone elses programming.

That this makes it hard for Spotify to pay its bills just shows that they made their price so low, that they don't only price artists and everyone else out of the market, but also themselves.
This has all the usual signs of a ponzi scheme.
I hope that bankruptcy soon follows and that I can utter a heartfelt Nelson Ha Ha.

The Ha Ha from around the world would be quite sizeable I should imagine.

I disagree on the CD/Radio aspect. It replaces both as far as I see it being used.

I'm not sure about Spotify not being able to sustain itself. Although they are yet to turn a profit. Right...

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/n ... advance-of

Fantastic if it all falls on it's arse, but then there are so many services out there, one will succeed. MySpace was first, Facebook blasted them.

Is the question about the value of music as a product in and of itself, rather than attached to a physical medium or delivery system, too airy fairy? It's not posed at anyone specifically, and very much to myself also. But I don't have an answer.

" “It was saying she didn’t think her music should be free. She doesn’t want her music played on an unlimited, on-demand free service with ads. It wasn’t anti-streaming: it was anti that type of streaming,” said Bay."

(http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... -streaming)

Ok, so this makes more sense. I don't really consider that people use the ad supported version of Spotify in any numbers. But they do. My mistake.

ohigetbywithalittlehelpfrommyfriends wrote: bono defends spotify: "I'm a spoiled rock star. I'm the wrong spokesperson for this, but I have to tell you: if I were starting a band now, aged 17 or 18, I would be very excited.... Though it is clear that there are some traumas as we move from physical to digital and 20th century to 21st century, and the people paying the highest price for those traumas are songwriters rather than performers, I still think forming a band is so exciting."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... s-20141107

Bono needed to shut up a long, long time ago.

I mean he understands that he is already a spoiled rock star without any connection to the plight of the yet unknown artists of this time, yet he thinks we should all be really, really excited. Why?! He gives no reason, except that forming a band is soooo exciting....

Why do people even listen to him anymore?!