Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment]
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
gj Michelob
Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco
|
 The advent of Spotify and the demise...
|
|
|
The advent of Spotify and the demise of ‘records’ as product [continuing on Ricardo’s comment]
Ricardo wrote:
“I am actually against this spotify thing. It is ok i guess for out of print or public domain music but royality of 1 cents for new musical pieces is disgusting to me. I am relieved if he or someone associated was able to get it off the streamers quickly. Youtube is bad enough. “
I completely agree with you, Ricardo, Spotify [along with YouTube to some extent] have really made it impossible for artists to sell their music [physical CDs or digital downloads]. This, however, lends an opportunity for an important debate:
how do musicians profit from their work?
It seems that at this juncture, most musicians solely see a substantial return on their efforts through gigs and concerts. In fact, there has been a significant increase in the number of musicians touring and appearing at every possible venue.
If concerts are the sole way to make any money, then Spotify simply represents a window to showcase and promote your music so that people learn who you are. One rather recurrent marketing strategy [particularly for new musicians] is to offer free downloads of their music [in that ‘might as well’ spirit, since it will be available for free regardless].
When I discovered Flamenco –in 2006- it happened on YouTube. Although most of Vicente’ work was available there, I bought every CD he had published quite faithfully –and waited eagerly for yours, Ricardo, since that is where I learned of you and your music.
However, I confess that since I converted to Spotify [the Premium version] –which I mostly listen to while driving- I have not purchased any download or CD. I almost feel guilty, believe me [and those who know me a little form this forum know how keen I am on helping musicians].
On the other hand, I suppose the music industry has changed, and so has the financial structure of how one can profit from it.
What are your thoughts, Ricardo and anyone else who wishes to intervene?
_____________________________
gj Michelob
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 17:47:23
 |
|
Munin
Posts: 595
Joined: Sep. 30 2008
From: Hong Kong
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
Vicente is wealthy enough to probably not care too much about that. He charges like 10,000 - 15,000 Euro for a single booking, and his old CDs still sell really well.
Anyway, without Spotify I wouldn't have been exposed to many artists. Albums historically have never made artists a lot of money except the top 1%, otherwise the money is in performing. That doesn't mean I think albums should just be pirated, but I believe things like YouTube and Spotify allow a lot of people, especially outside of Spain, to access flamenco and other less popular music they otherwise would have never heard. So to me, that's a good thing.
The model is still somewhat flawed, but it's also really young. It's the future though and artists and the industry need to find a way to adapt.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 18:05:58
|
|
xirdneH_imiJ
Posts: 1889
Joined: Dec. 2 2006
From: Budapest, now in Southampton
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
i can only speak about my own country, but since music has got essentially free, there are much more musicians that are forced to remain amateurs, because playing music is no longer a viable means of living...the few brave ones who still choose this life usually play in more than 2-3 bands and join many temporary formations...there are also no concerts any more, there are small club gigs that don't pay well at all, and i see a general dip in quality of music played here, even by pros...they have to retain a huge repertoire and have to work 3 times as much for the same money, obviously that doesn't help creativity either...
popular music is dictated by the main tv channels and their promo machine, the talent shows, etc, very few have a chance at making it, even less on remaining close to the top...the chances are better when they represent a subculture...i've been fortunate in the past 3 months having played many gigs, but my income from music still doesn't come close to those who sit in an office 8 hours a day...
selling albums used to be a source of income not just for the top musicians, they can barely feel the difference, i think, a couple million here or there doesn't matter honestly...but smaller bands and smaller musicians have had that source of income taken away from them and are now forced to seek out every opportunity to perform, anywhere, with anyone...
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 18:50:11
|
|
gj Michelob
Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Sean)
|
|
|
Thank you for your replies.
Since YouTube and Spotify [and add a few more of those vehicles, such as Pandora or even the traditional radio] exist, we must deal with a reality that cannot be dismissed simply by our own adamant disagreement.
In the splendid days of Bach and Mozart, music was not a ‘product’ yet, it was a service. It became a product when technology allowed it to be stored into physical means, the ‘record’. The beauty of a product [v. a service] is that a product can be duplicated/replicated infinitely, without additional work by its maker. Service, on the other hand, is restricted by the limitation of the service-provider’s physical presence [the musician].
In a certain way, Spotify and co. have restored music to what it was, a service. So I pose two questions which, perhaps, are aimed at some constructive result:
1. How did musicians make money in the days of Mozart?
2. How can technology help musicians once again, as it did by inventing the miracle of the ‘record’, to make their industry profitable again?
_____________________________
gj Michelob
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 19:37:47
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
quote:
1. How did musicians make money in the days of Mozart?
For some composers and musicians, the answer was to be employed by one of the royal courts. Mozart, for example, was for a time employed as court musician by the ruler of Salzburg. Bach did a stint as court composer at the court of Augustus III of Poland. Many other lesser known composers and musicians were employed by royal courts, of which in those days there were many (there were more than 300 German kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and other entities). That is an option that does not exist today.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 20:45:41
|
|
Munin
Posts: 595
Joined: Sep. 30 2008
From: Hong Kong
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
I agree with chester. It's gonna sound a bit horrible but artists aren't entitled to money by mere virtue of being artists. Society isn't a charity that is obliged to support professions that would otherwise die out. For many flamencos, having day jobs is a completely common thing. If anything it seems to me that foreigners can more easily launch a music career in their own countries since they'll encounter less competition there.
Some people will throw in the towel, others will adapt, just like it has always been for any profession in the world. Guilt tripping people into supporting artists because they arguably deserve the money more than other hard working people will not work. If you become a musician full-time, it's your choice, and you accept the risks associated with it. If you ask around in rock and indie circles, a lot of bands will tell you that the internet has overall been more than a blessing than a curse, hell, bands have been publishing albums on a pay-what-you-want (or even just if-you-want) basis for years now.
It's clear that music is valued less in economic terms than perhaps 20 years ago. That might be sad, and it will be even sadder if it leads to less music published, but we can't change it, and it's not anybody's fault in particular. You either work with the new situation or you don't, but you can't demand society to cater to you just because you're in the arts.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 20:57:35
|
|
gj Michelob
Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
Many other lesser known composers and musicians were employed by royal courts, of which in those days there were many (there were more than 300 German kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and other entities). That is an option that does not exist today. Cheers, Bill
The ‘option’ still exists; it has changed but it still involves ‘Royalty’ …
‘Royalty’ used to commission music composition, now movie and commercial production houses will commission music pay a fee and a... ‘Royalty’
Musicians still have pupils as they always did [sure YouTube has replaced the need to have friends teach you a falseta or a few chords, but if you want to really learn, there still isn’t anything like a Teacher].
The big change from Mozart to today is the century-long period where music could be sold in a small package, the LP then the CD, and now ending with the nearly unlimited free access to music. I think that we ought to accept it, whether we like it or not.
But what if [just a few example to tickle your imagination on how to address the problem]:
1. You’d have for free on Spotify [as you do on YouTube] Ricardo’s practice-tapes, but the well recorded, sound-engineered, orchestrated [meaning with other instruments] work must be purchased? After all, that is exactly what Ricardo did, and I bought his CDs.
2. You’d have for free on Spotify only a few songs, that you are willing to invest as the price of your ‘exposure’ but the balance of the CD must be paid for?
_____________________________
gj Michelob
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 22:51:23
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to chester)
|
|
|
quote:
I'd like to clarify that Spotify does not choose what to pay the artists. They have agreements with record labels and that is what determines how much an artist gets.
I am not on a record label, nor did I make any agreement with them what so ever. They pay me what they want which is 1 Cent per listen I assume.
quote:
It's a rough world out there. If you're going to start blaming others for your hardships you're not gonna get very far.
I am not blaming others for any hardships, rather trying to warn about what could happen in the future if these practices continue.
quote:
Music is always going to be 'worth it to make'. I don't think anyone starts playing music because they think it's a good career choice. It's fun.
By making music, I was refering to making recordings for sale. As I said, if musicians banded together and decide never to record ever again, it would change all this. I don't see a need for such extremes to simply show respect for the production of sound recordings and the artists that produce them. Nor do I see why it would need to be the case that musicians need to do away with concept of it being a profession only because of this easy sharing crap.
quote:
It's gonna sound a bit horrible but artists aren't entitled to money by mere virtue of being artists.
Yes they are. They are entitled to that and more IMO. They are too often exploited. Time is money, everybody knows that. If our time and work put in is valuable then there is deserved money there. Some artists are more popular than others sure, some are more skilled than others too, but there should never be a point where some one could say "sorry, all your artistic efforts are non deserving of any reward other than personal satisfaction".
quote:
Guilt tripping people into supporting artists because they arguably deserve the money more than other hard working people will not work. If you become a musician full-time, it's your choice, and you accept the risks associated with it. If you ask around in rock and indie circles, a lot of bands will tell you that the internet has overall been more than a blessing than a curse, hell, bands have been publishing albums on a pay-what-you-want (or even just if-you-want) basis for years now.
Pushing some buttons is not "hard work" IMO. Mastering an instrument is. Performing and recording can be, or at least WILL be the result of hard work and time spent. At first the internet seemed to have a great potential for the little guy to circumvent the big companies and have full control of their work. At first it did. I said couple times already this easy button touching world is a double edged sword. All I am saying is that the musicians could have or still can try to take control of this thing before it's too late. For example, a more fair royalty rate? Limit or control of what exactly gets "spotified". Lots of fair compromises IMO. As it appears, its not a support of music, but an exploitation of it for one big company who is NOT an artist.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 23 2013 23:19:37
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to chester)
|
|
|
quote:
In that case cdbaby is the 'label' that has an agreement with Spotify.
No they are not.
quote:
I wasn't referring to you specifically. ]
You referred to me generally inadvertantly. 
quote:
What about making a record because you want to create something? Isn't that what art is all about?
No. Recordings are only to capture the music to preserve it in a certain form. Creating something musical and artistic need not involve the recording process at all. When it is recorded, ideally the artist would have some say in how it all goes and what is done with it after words. Not always the case though the potential is there.
quote:
Really? Well....I'm an artist.
Prove it. I will be the judge and pay accordingly.
quote:
Maybe, but getting to the stage where you know which button to push when - is. Anyway, not sure what you meant here as munin was talking about how many bands have actually embraced new technologies.
No, implication was that being an artist is "fun" not "hard work".... and therefore anyone doing something "fun" has no right to feel entitled to earning money in comparison to someone doing something considered "work". Button pushing is considered "work" by many these days. Example...spotify employees or bosses or who ever it is deciding on how to split the profits resulting from people streaming music by pushing buttons that were made available to push by other non artists that pushed some buttons to make it so easy and accessible. My 3 year old can do a lot by pushing buttons on an ipad...trust me it IS impressive to see a 3 year old do that. "Hard work" is not the term I would use to describe what it takes to get to that level of understanding and ability.
quote:
I'm pretty sure no one is forced to be on Spotify. Some artists have pulled their stuff off because they didn't like the pay structure.
For no good reason obviously, they must be so greedy. 
quote:
Sure, but that company is not Spotify
Well, I read the article, sounds fishy. I mean the private deals with record companies means they (companies) caught on to what they were trying to do fast and squeeze em hard...it used to be pretty standard to license music out. Good for them. It's probably why as discussed some material got removed quickly as it appeared. Not sure about their expenses either. Could be that as I am here complaining or warning about it, many others more in the know have already been jumping hard at the issues here. Considering the company did not have to front any money to produce any music, it seems eyebrow raising their amazing high numbers on salaries and "expenses" etc after all complaining they don't make enough on adverts since they have to PAY ROYALTiES?? It's streaming for god sake. If nobody listened to any thing they would not have to pay a dime and still make money off subscriptions and whatever poor adverts.  So what damn sense does it make that they offer people music to listen to they can't even afford to license???? It seems obvious their plan to exploit got sort of busted.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 9:05:14
|
|
Munin
Posts: 595
Joined: Sep. 30 2008
From: Hong Kong
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Sean)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sean
quote:
It's a rough world out there. If you're going to start blaming others for your hardships you're not gonna get very far.
Ok I'm convinced, corporate greed is a good thing. When it comes for me I will smile and hand it the vaseline, as I'm sure you will. We can just keep changing occupations every time it comes to pick the bones clean; that is until there aren't any left.
The important thing is, people should shut up and not whine about.
quote:
Society isn't a charity that is obliged to support professions that would otherwise die out.
What about corporations that make big money off these charity cases, does that make them charities? I'm all for society not being obliged to support them
Stop overreacting. Nobody here is a corporate shill, and not all new technologies are evil creations by greedy suits. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, go "LA LA LA" and close your eyes from reality, be my guest. Prepare to be forced to do that a lot in the upcoming years though.
quote:
Prove it. I will be the judge and pay accordingly.
So who are you to judge this? Every individual in society makes that judgment by either paying or not paying chester for what he does, whatever that is. If nobody thinks he should be paid for what he does, it's the people's fault then? If I really love folding paper cranes and have put in 20,000 hours of my life folding really awesome paper cranes, do you think I should automatically receive money for that without question? Where do you draw the line?
What I do agree with is that people who are already enjoying someone else's creation which was meant to be sold should acquire it in a legal fashion. As I explained in the beginning, Spotify's model isn't ideal but it's how the future is going to look. If you don't like your album on there, pull it off. And if there are people who want to pay for it, they still will. And a good part of the people who don't may not have done so in the first place. Equating a pirated or Spotify-ed copy to a lost sale is quite a superficial conclusion.
quote:
No, implication was that being an artist is "fun" not "hard work"
No, the implication was that being an artist is hard work, but that is also the case for a lot of other professions and it's quite arrogant to state other professions involve sitting in an office, "pushing some buttons" and watching the money roll in while being a musician consists of this romantic yet thankless struggle to follow your passions.
Musicians are part of our society and economy and are hence subject to the same supply and demand as everyone else. In an ideal world there'd be enough money going around for everyone to freely follow their hearts doing whatever their love. Unfortunately that's not how it works. So why should artists be exempted from this? Just because they're "artists"? Again, where do you draw the line then?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 9:36:08
|
|
gj Michelob
Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
This is taking a more agitated spin than what I meant, but after all it is important to fully appreciate the problem in order to resolve it.
If we view the entertainment industry at large, we see how Movies and Sports are doing quite well. Books are still selling, both in paper and digital format. Television still strives on the incessant wave of advertisements, and so do many magazines [the NY times], although some [the WSJ and WWD] require a modest fee to access online.
The reason why I had asked how Musicians were paid in the days of Mozart, is because I believe that the answer lays squarely in that ancient business model. Music does no longer earn money from the masses but from the single sponsor who may want to reach the masses through some alternative vehicle.
Now, if there were a Flamenco only YouTube, which we could only access by paying a modest fee, we probably would pay it. Each musician would serve very much as any journalist does. Membership fees and advertisements would pay the Management Company, and participants could be salaried.
But also, and most importantly, Music has only started now tapping the deep pockets of commercial sponsorship. However, that may be the way of its future, to switch the focus from the consumer at large [who no longer buy music –or very little] to the sponsor who needs its own exposure [and sells its products through it].
Before we offer a product or a service, the first question always should be, is there a ‘market’ for it, meaning “who will buy it?”
So let’s try to answer that question now, who is interested in buying music?
_____________________________
gj Michelob
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 13:58:17
|
|
Erik van Goch
Posts: 1787
Joined: Jul. 17 2012
From: Netherlands
|
|
RE: The advent of Spotify and the de... (in reply to gj Michelob)
|
|
|
The concept of offering your music for free based of "pay what you think it's worth" does highly appeal to me, both as a buyer and as a potential artist. Only drawback is that a growing amount of people don't see why they should pay for products they can also get for free, which is basically a lack of (financial) appreciation for the time/artistic/financial input of the artist. If enough people were willing to pay a fair price (based on market value and personal appreciation) this would be a marvelous system.
The old system of artist being contracted by record companies have a lot of drawbacks as well. The companies quite often have a lot to say about the production and have fixed ideas of what sells and what not. Quite often the artist has to compromise personal artistic values in order to get contracted. When the record sells most of the money goes to the company en the stores selling the product (the artist may only receive 0,10-0,30 for each cd sold).
Obviously a lot of records fail to sell and companies have to be allowed to level there losses with the few records titles that do sell in great amounts. But the artist that delivered that (financial) hit still has to seattle for the agreed 0,20 a copy and long after the company earned back there investment (and made lots of profit on top of it) they still earn the publishing rights of the music you composed, up to a point were you are not allowed to use your own music on your own website without there permission.
From a buyers point of view the "pay what you think it's worth to you" system seems to be very fair as well and i would be more willing to give a record a try when i only have to pay for tracks i actually like. That would have saved me loads of money in the past. There are a couple of records i would grant 100,- or more (which for the artist equals 500 copy's sold by a record company) but the over majority of records/cd's i bought "to get hold of a certain track" had nothing to offer but that one track and the over majority of the cd's i bought after hearing an inspirational solo concert turned out to be overproduced "crap" that i would never listen to voluntarily. So many times i payed 10-30 euro for a cd that turned out to be "a complete disaster" that i basically stopped buying them and on precent day i only buy cd's to hold the signature of the artist i'm buying from....if it turns out to contain a track that i like as well that's a miracle. One of the last ones i bought was Moraito's "Morao Morao"...i only played it once (prefer watching the dvd) but i still treasure the photograph and the signature.
That's an other drawback of the publishers domain, they know how to sell a product. If 12 new tracks are discovered from the Beatles they are not published as a hole but "offered" in small and very expensive bits by including them as "bonus tracks" on new prints of old records. To get hold of them you have to buy 12 cd's from the Beatles that are already in your possession...... first they sold you the LP, than the cd, than the super audio cd, than the same cd with bonus tracks and finally (?) the remastered collection (the mono and stereo versions obviously are sold separately). When they published the autobiography of the Beatles the original version was EXCLUDED from the dutch marked for a 1 year period. The idea was to sell them the dutch translated book first, assuming the real fans eventually would be willing to buy the original as well, selling 1 book for the price of 2....so i wonder who is ripping of who?????
I already mentioned Moraito..... the same rip of system is used for his encuentro dvd. You can not buy that dvd as a separate item because it is only sold in combination with the book. Oh, you are one of those idiot's that helped us to grow by buying the original "book with VIDEO" when it was offered for the first time. We understand your position, but if you want to upscale that original video to the precent day dvd you still have to buy the book for a second time as well.....is it strange people make copies instead?
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Feb. 24 2013 14:37:31
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.109375 secs.
|
Printable Version
