Spotify controversy continues, Joe B weighs in

Just saying that Spotify get stick for fleecing artists,but artist rarely get the same condemnation for fleecing their fans.. Spotify have no inbuilt loyalty to the artists they feature.Where as artists should have some loyalty to their fans.So which 'fleecing' is worse? Just thinking out loud.

 

Go back farther to the cylinder / shellac format war.

We have the name "album" because of 78's and how they could be combined in a book and placed on a shelf. Cylinders, which technically had better frequency response, were not as convenient to deal with due to their shape. And 78's could be duplicated much more easily.

We know how that turned out.

 

Those aren't grenades....those are HomePods

 

This is not at all the same thing. You're just buying into a narrative. This is not a question of one technology supplanting another one, it's the systematic forced obsolescence of a perfectly viable format, a move that only ultimately serves corporate interests. Streaming is for suckers.

 

Where's the BMW?

 

best post on this forum in a long while as far as I'm concerned

 

100% correct. That so many are falling for the industry line is pretty sad. Marketing clearly works!

Let's remember, we've been able to listen to music online since Youtube started. We've had various music websites since then. The only difference now is that they removed the ability to own the music (or license it, if you prefer) and play it offline (I know Spotify has an option to do this to an extent, but it's not like owning a disc). They traded that for letting you have the keys to the record store - an "advantage" that rings hollow (for me), since I already listen to the music I like!

 

It's exactly the same thing. It's not forced obsolescence, people just moved on, like they always do after a couple decades. You can't play a CD on your mobile device, and that's what the vast majority of people use to play music on the go. This isn't about SHF members, it's about the mass public, like always. It's the same reason new rock/pop CD's have sounded like crap for 20 years, this small subset of people doesn't matter to the big machine.

 

You mean like vinyl, back in the late 1980's / early 1990's? That was the music industry golden age.... (then) overpriced CD's selling hand-over-fist as consumers re-bought all their music again. Records had surface noise, they were outdated technology and you couldn't play them in your car and were bulky to store.

Btw, I'm not disagreeing about the concerns on streaming and where things are headed as I have no idea how this is going to pan out. Higher streaming pricing, labels breaking up Spotify and/or albums showing up only on one of many streaming companies. No idea but I don't think the CD / LP is going to disappear quite just yet....especially 2020 like that other CD thread suggested.

 

And remember when Tom Petty and other musicians in the early '80s were complaining that the price of records was too high.

 

It's easy to market a superior product at a good price point.

If I pull up the Stones' A Bigger Bang, one of the worst-sounding albums of all time (but one I enjoy musically), what is the difference in my experience between a CD and a stream? Some mediocre photography/artwork and a printout of Mick's iffy lyrics in a tiny, tiny almost unreadable font? I mean, I'm getting the exact same music, but not cluttering up my house or wasting $15 on this brickwalled mess. (which, sadly, I did back in 2005...even got the DVD which I never watched)

 

Pre-recorded cassettes were cheaper than LP's, and home taping was killing the music industry too.

Talk about a one-two punch with disruptive technology back then.

 

we'd gladly take those prices of back then!

 

Also, Joe is an independent artist who could easily pull his music off digital services if he wanted. But i see all his stuff still up there. *shrug*

 

Think about this.
When (and I suppose if, but really the foot is already seeming to drop) there are no more physical releases, and there are no players to play the old hat physical media .... What happens when a Tipper Gore type figure gets in the ear of her husband, who is responsible for the allocation of streaming rights to the licensed groups?
We have already seen artists thrown to the back pages for not playing the game correctly.
In generations to come will nobody be able to listen to the Beatles because John said something about Jesus, and the butcher cover was in bad taste. Will someone decide that Madonna was just a little too lascivious and shouldn't be listened to. Does someone decide that songs about certain topics aren't acceptable and therefor "unavailable to stream" ...
It may seem a little out there, but the Orwellian way things are going, it doesn't seem to far out to me.

 

5,000 "spins" on Spotify does not equate to 5,000 "spins" on the radio. His comparison is flawed.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen we are moving all music to streaming. We are going to call our facility the Politburo in honour of our Fathers.
We will be coming to your houses and taking all your physical media. You will stream. It is convenient and cheap, you will like what you are given, get back in your capsule, drone!

 

IMO musicians have to understand that today releasing a record is just a promotional campaign, but it still cheaper than promotional campaigns for most other products. To be able to make a living and even get rich only by selling records was kind of an anomaly that lasted just few decades. So they have to do live shows in order to live by their music - and this is not a new concept, but the traditional and well established musical practice that exists for many centuries.

 

I think artists need to shake up the industry by finding new methods of marketing, and recognise that the labels who are doing pretty well from streaming are providing much less value now that their physical production and distribution is less important.

I disagree with the almost conspiracy theory of streaming being adopted to stop people owning music and being forced into music junkie-dom paying ever increasing monthly fees. Labels and artists generally reluctantly licensed to streaming services in reaction to a collapsing business. Piracy is ever present and easier than ever - that is the market force and competition that makes it unlikely that the monthly cost will inflate significantly.

 

So true!
But did this threat stop Sony and Philips two of the largest record companies from producing their own cassettes?

 

Joe Bonamassa has a net worth of $20 Million dollars and still has half his career ahead of him.

Him writing a check for $10K to pay for what the musicians are "losing" via streaming is like you writing a check for $25 to your gardener. Let the famous celebrity compensate his team properly, problem solved. Perhaps the problem with the record industry model isn't that musicians and producers aren't being paid enough by streaming services; perhaps the problem is that the famous artists are greedy and need that 4th house and that 30th car more that paying it forward to the people that put them in Malibu to begin with.

 

Surely if this was the case then weren’t CDs really a step backward? I’m sure I remember that Car and personal players came later and were not (initially) without their teething problems. Even when the issues with shock induced skipping were sorted personal CD players were always bulky and awkward compared with cassette Walkmans and does anybody remember having to access their car auto-changer via the boot?
Having said that I had both of these things.

 

nope! LOL

 

...nothing kills-killed the music industry.

 

But everything that is out there on streaming services is also out there on Youtube and blogs. So no - everything will always be available.

There really is nothing at all to worry about, from a consumer perspective.

From a musician perspective? Yeah, you've probably got some issues to work out with the label, because not making any money is a drag.