Spotify Punishing Artists Who Offer Apple Music Exclusives [Updated]

[DevNull0]

I'm not disputing your account of artists, in regards to income. However, it sounds more like sour grapes, than an argument.

Then you must have misunderstood me. I'm quite happy with it this way. If I earned a living as an artist, I would enjoy art a lot less, and I'd work a lot harder for a lot less money. This way I can keep doing something i enjoy because I enjoy it.

My comment was about the people who seem to think anyone who creates music for people to enjoy should be paid a good wage. Yet those people don't care about other types of artists.

 

[StonewallBrown]

Then you must have misunderstood me. I'm quite happy with it this way. If I earned a living as an artist, I would enjoy art a lot less, and I'd work a lot harder for a lot less money. This way I can keep doing something i enjoy because I enjoy it.

My comment was about the people who seem to think anyone who creates music for people to enjoy should be paid a good wage. Yet those people don't care about other types of artists.

I don't think that, that's the main grip here. There's a difference between thinking all music artists should be paid with a bag of gold and the believe that an artist should be able to make the max off their talent(or what the market dictates as talent).

If my previous post came off as snarky, my apologies. Wasn't intended as such.

 

[DevNull0]

There's a difference between thinking all music artists should be paid with a bag of gold and the believe that an artist should be able to make the max off their talent(or what the market dictates as talent).

For the artist to make the max off their talent, it becomes more business than art. And that's where the labels and people like Taylor Swift come in. And then the people here shouldn't be complaining about the the labels taking all the money.

Let's say I could find an arrangement where all I do is take pictures and some other company (label) meets with clients signs them, deals with contracts, billing, collections, the logistics of finding and renting studio space it. So all I have to do is create my art. If they took 75% of the total money, it would be a fantastic bargain for me.

 

[inkswamp]

I prefer listening to music on records.

Hello time traveller from the 1970s. You have a lot of catching up to do.

So one must suppose that Apple is holy goodness and Spotify is abject evil. Mustn't one...

Why?

 

[StonewallBrown]

For the artist to make the max off their talent, it becomes more business than art. And that's where the labels and people like Taylor Swift come in. And then the people here shouldn't be complaining about the the labels taking all the money.

Let's say I could find an arrangement where all I do is take pictures and some other company (label) meets with clients signs them, deals with contracts, billing, collections, the logistics of finding and renting studio space it. So all I have to do is create my art. If they took 75% of the total money, it would be a fantastic bargain for me.

It would be a great deal, for a beginner. Those artists, who have also added to their talents, by learning the business aspects, shouldn't be able to maximize profits? This is the only area where we disagree.

 

[Abazigal]

Then you must have misunderstood me. I'm quite happy with it this way. If I earned a living as an artist, I would enjoy art a lot less, and I'd work a lot harder for a lot less money. This way I can keep doing something i enjoy because I enjoy it.

My comment was about the people who seem to think anyone who creates music for people to enjoy should be paid a good wage. Yet those people don't care about other types of artists.

Imagine if I made a donation to the cancer foundation, only to get criticised for not donating to the other 100 charities around as well.

For one, this thread is about music, so any discussion about the prospects of photography is seriously besides the point. You want to discuss about it, please start a new thread.

To me, there is no shame in an artist writing music or performing his art just to make a living. It might not match your idyllic vision of how an artist ought to live, but hey, this is real life speaking here. I have teacher colleagues who have long lost the passion for teaching, but they stay on because it pays the bills, and they still deliver what is expected of them at the end of the day.

That's why I don't quite get the point of your rant. So just because I am not out there campaigning for better pay for budding enthusiast photographers means that I have no right to support better wages for artists? If I can make a difference, I will, but it doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to do so.

In the case of music streaming, it so happens that the music service I am subscribed to also happens to be paying the artists a higher percentage, so I can argue I am already doing anyways. The rest is really up to them.

As for photography, we will talk if I ever have to avail myself to their services one day, but not before.

 

[PBRsg]

Isn't there an update?

Apple is a very closed company... They comment on very little.

I was talking about Spotify changing their search criteria.
[doublepost=1472429743][/doublepost]

Says who?

All the people that do not appreciate sneaky, behind the scenes behaviour.

 

[WordsmithMR]

Its their business, they can choose to promote artists how they see fit.

And with that mentality that's how the service will shut down. If you're a Spotify user you should be concerned. If you're not a Spotify user... Well that explains why you didn't put much thought into your comment.

 

[Substance90]

BS. The labels have always used exclusives.

Exclusive to the label but not to some random CD show on the street. The equivalent of the traditional music business would be the label signing a deal with a particular CD store to only sell their albums there.

 

[rhett7660]

Exclusive to the label but not to some random CD show on the street. The equivalent of the traditional music business would be the label signing a deal with a particular CD store to only sell their albums there.

No, it would be stores such as Target, Best Buy, or another big name store that gets exclusives of a CD. Whether it is an exclusive song to the CD which is "only" sold in one of the above mentioned stores, or one of the stores gets the CD a day or week early. This happens all the time, especially with big name acts.

 

[SvP]

How are these exclusives not the subject of investigation by the authorities - especially in Europe?

Last time I checked, concocting a monopoly out of a naturally competitive market was illegal in the UK.

exclusivity does not equal monopoly. In that example it would be illegal for a store to sell it's own brand of soap

 

[Biu_miu]

It's awkward, that we have to discuss such unimportant topic here. It's generic POP music we are talking about- artists, that will be forgotten in 3-5 years, when something more trendy comes along. It's just pop trends- boring, unoriginal, mixes of pop/rap song for us to listen to in background while driving or cooking or fornicating. If these artists would disappear from music scene, no one would miss them, as there are hundreds of other artists, that make the same music
This topic in NOT important, it is important only for labels and artists, because it messes with their income. Thats it. They see you only as ATMs. Geez.
There are a bunch of artists on Spotify and on Apple Music, that I like and listen to. And there are a bunch of artists, that I listen on youtube, get from torrents, from friends, buy CDs, because they are not on Spotify and Apple Music. What you are going to do about that?
Anyway, this "exclusivity" thing will only harm us- listeners. Let's say I have only Spotify account. BUT I want to listen to this Frenk Ocean guy. I can't make one playlist, I have to switch apps, I have to get Apple Music account... not worth the trouble... again- only topical for artists and labels, who already are super rich

 

[Brookzy]

exclusivity does not equal monopoly. In that example it would be illegal for a store to sell it's own brand of soap

Not quite, because as I pointed out in my original post, there was a competitive market before Apple's intervention.

If Apple had some IP on the service as they do with their products then it's right they have a monopoly as it is their invention.

But taking a competitive market and using your money and market power to become the sole supplier is creating a monopoly.

 

[Rigby]

Spotify might survive if they get rid of their free tier.

Or it might kill their growth, since the majority of paying subscribers start out as free-tier customers and are later converted.

 

[Michael Anthony]

Instead of Spotify getting their panties in a twist, maybe they should direct that effort to improving their services even more (I have nothing against Spotify.)

 

[Rigby]

I'm surprised they Spotify can get away with this since the major labels owns a part of the company

No, Spotify is still an independent and privately owned company. And even if they weren't, not promoting artists who help promote their competition is obviously entirely within their rights and not something to "get away with".

 

[Lennholm]

If it had been the other way around, this thread would rather have been filled with comments like:
"Apple has every right to choose who they do and do not promote!! Why would you expect Apple to do anything helpful for artists that collaborate with their competition! Those traitors should be glad Apple doesn't kick them out completely!!!"

 

[WordsmithMR]

It's awkward, that we have to discuss such unimportant topic here. It's generic POP music we are talking about- artists, that will be forgotten in 3-5 years, when something more trendy comes along. It's just pop trends- boring, unoriginal, mixes of pop/rap song for us to listen to in background while driving or cooking or fornicating. If these artists would disappear from music scene, no one would miss them, as there are hundreds of other artists, that make the same music
This topic in NOT important, it is important only for labels and artists, because it messes with their income. Thats it. They see you only as ATMs. Geez.
There are a bunch of artists on Spotify and on Apple Music, that I like and listen to. And there are a bunch of artists, that I listen on youtube, get from torrents, from friends, buy CDs, because they are not on Spotify and Apple Music. What you are going to do about that?
Anyway, this "exclusivity" thing will only harm us- listeners. Let's say I have only Spotify account. BUT I want to listen to this Frenk Ocean guy. I can't make one playlist, I have to switch apps, I have to get Apple Music account... not worth the trouble... again- only topical for artists and labels, who already are super rich

If you feel like it isn't important, why bother reading or commenting?

 

[skitidetdu]

No, Spotify is still an independent and privately owned company. And even if they weren't, not promoting artists who help promote their competition is obviously entirely within their rights and not something to "get away with".

No, the record labels are: Sony BMG (5,8 percent), Universal Music (4,8 percent), Warner Music (3,8 percent) and EMI (1,9 percent). Also Merlin holds a small stake. This is not a lot (around 17%) but still part of the company...

 

[Rigby]

No, the record labels are: Sony BMG (5,8 percent), Universal Music (4,8 percent), Warner Music (3,8 percent) and EMI (1,9 percent). Also Merlin holds a small stake. This is not a lot (around 17%) but still part of the company...

Interesting. I found an old Techcrunch article that reported this (in 2009). If true, that may have been part of Spotify's licensing deal with these labels.

 

[MacBergin]

ok now i wouldn't even use Spotify for free. What a smart move Spotify.

 

[igorsky]

If it had been the other way around, this thread would rather have been filled with comments like:
"Apple has every right to choose who they do and do not promote!! Why would you expect Apple to do anything helpful for artists that collaborate with their competition! Those traitors should be glad Apple doesn't kick them out completely!!!"

Sounds like this is your first rodeo. There are as many critics of Apple on this forum as there are supporters, so your comment is flat out wrong.

 

[Stella]

And with that mentality that's how the service will shut down. If you're a Spotify user you should be concerned. If you're not a Spotify user... Well that explains why you didn't put much thought into your comment.

Seems like your a bit sensitive?

Labels may keep Spotify alive so Apple do not gain domination as per iTunes.

The reality: I very much doubt Spotify will close because they 'punish' a few artists.

 

[Plutonius]

Or it might kill their growth, since the majority of paying subscribers start out as free-tier customers and are later converted.

You can give out a free trial month like everyone else is. The free Spotify they have now should be positive for growth but it is more than offset by the lose of revenue.

 

[Rigby]

You can give out a free trial month like everyone else is.

But why should they do what everybody else does if their own strategy made them the leader?

The free Spotify they have now should be positive for growth but it is more than offset by the lose of revenue.

I'm not convinced that dropping the free service would have a big impact on revenue. Let's not forget that the free tier is pretty restricted, particularly on mobile devices. The market is still in an early stage and achieving critical mass and market share is more important at this point than short-term profits IMO.