I'm not sure what I meant, I just woke up.

I think we can all agree with that.

AJ wrote:

I think we can all agree with that.

Seconded.

Not that I agree with piracy copying without permission, mind you. But I don't think the current model works particularly well, either (a few musicians earn millions, the rest do it at a massive loss if they're lucky). Remember, when someone says piracy copying without permission is killing the music industry, the key word is industry.

It's nice that Spotify are coughing up, though.

My issue is that the money gained through streaming services is ill distributed. More should go to the artists (writers, composers, producers, performers) and less to the spotify shareholders (venture capitalists and *gasp* music industry companies). 

The system is rigged: you cannot set up a simple music streaming service without access to the music, and you can't get access to the music without a multi-million dollar minimum licensing fee up front, non-refundable.

It's not about defending Taylor Swift's millions, it's about the money for creating something going mostly to the creators. It's also not about saying the facilitators / distributors / investors should get nothing either, just not so much.

Should we be able to get it as cheap as we do? History shows people willing to pay more than they're now paying. I suspect we'd still be willing to pay more were that the only option. So it feels like the overall music market has fucked itself and hence the artists in particular due to theses new means of selling (and competition between packages thetein).

Progress, eh?

The progress is that Spotify et al have managed to make people pay for music again after a huge period of rampant piracy. Nobody's going back to the time of extortionate cd prices thank you very much. Musicians should be thanking streaming instead of pining for the long gone days of golden rolls royces.

That sounds terrible.

Kow wrote:

You bought an album in the past and half it was shit (and I imagine the same today), but that's not considered a rip off - you pay your money and you take your chances. Now they're making less money because people are listening to the tracks they like and ignoring the faff. so yeah, musicians are only making a percentage of the money as before. Seems fair to me.

What about if four shit tracks subsidised the creation of four excellent tracks? Like the cost of four good tracks was ten pounds but people wouldn't buy a four song cd so they had to beef up the listing?

When was this time of extortionate CD prices? I don't remember then ever going above, maybe, £15.

What we really need is for artists to start publishing directly to the services, like we're getting with Steam. I have to deal with middle men that do nothing, but cream a stupid amount off the top, in my work; they really need to be expunged from all industries. I understand labels giving advances to artists fit work yet to come is a useful mechanism, but it can exist without an the shit that's currently around it, as we see to an extent with crowd funding.

The worst thing about Spotify is that it'll create the soundtracks of lives based on who's willing to stump up a bribe Imo.

20 euros for a CD was/is extortionate. We paid it because there was no choice but it wasn't a fair price.

This is all very obvious.

It was nearly 20 quid for a CD 20 years ago. Whatever their value then, it doesn't hold up now.

AJ keeps saying my thoughts. Spooky.

Just tried the Spotify Discover Weekly playlist for the first time. Really impressed. Not sure how they can get it so right when others either get it wrong or don't even try.