By Michael Corcoran
I love the superpower that Spotify has given me — the ability to think of a song and then play it five seconds later. My old, scratched, tossed-around albums only wish I had this ability back when I partied nightly.
But I hate what Spotify does to musicians. The labels take the music and pay peanuts. I can’t believe that most new CDs come out on Spotify the same day they’re in the stores. It’s not only free, but you don’t have to find parking. Streaming has cost musicians a major revenue stream.
But was that my problem?
I got into a big Facebook tiff a couple years ago with a musician I’ve known a long time, who posted that anyone who subscribes to Spotify would be unfriended immediately. I said that’s like boycotting R&B music from the ’50s, because all those artists got ripped off, too.
But I’m finally quitting Spotify because this isn’t Bill Haley or Frankie Lyman and the Teenagers we’re talking about. It’s our friends and neighbors. It’s musicians who’ve worked their butts off for years to pay the bills and now they can’t. Spotify has become a billion dollar company while squeezing money out of the creative element. We know the record labels sold out their artists, back when the technology was newer than the laws. But what’s the hold up? Spotify and other streaming services have to be made to pay higher royalties.
So what if they have to raise the subscription rate? That current $10 a month total is based on not having to pay for music. That’s their business model: being a thief and passing the savings to customers is the only way to survive. Charge $25 a month for all the music you want and if that’s too high, then go out of business.
The problem could be the marketplace. A reason so many people think music should be free is because as much of it is to be endured as enjoyed. There’s a bombardment to the point that just listening seems to be payment enough.
Maybe there needs to be an earth-scorching moment for the plants to be rejuvenated. The record business, which started, in earnest, with Mamie Smith’s 1920 smash “Crazy Blues,” is about 100 years old. Poor people paid 75 cents for a 78 RPM record of two songs because the idea that you could hear music on your own terms was pure magic. Nowadays, folks expect the entire library of recorded sounds for free.
You know all that money young adults are saving by not having to pay for music? They use it to buy airline tickets to Austin every March so they can go to parties with free booze and bands. “Millennials” comes from the Latin word for “freeloader.”
Sometimes you just have to make a sacrifice, to do the right thing. You have to realize that in a capitalist society, money’s the only thing that can make a change. Until Spotify starts treating musicians fairly, they’re not getting any more of my mine. And Spotify champion Bob Lefsetz can chow down on today’s blue plate special, which in his case is always a bag of dicks.
Note: On Dec. 28, 2015, artist and songwriter David Lowery (frontman of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker) filed a $150 million class action lawsuit against Spotify over unpaid royalties. (Details at Billboard.com)
Why single out Spotify when Jimmy Iovine, Jay-Z, Trent Reznor and Dre are doing the same thing? Before them, Steve Jobs fought tooth and nail to ensure a single would be worth $0.99. Heck we paid more for 45’s in the 1980s. I suspect you know the reason rates are so low for songwriters and artists is because of the record companies themselves. Do I think Lowery should be paid more than $20 for 1 million plays of Low? Absolutely. But like many artists, he signed a deal with the devil (read: record label) in the 1980s. And the terms of that deal allowed Virgin to sell his music for much less than it was worth. The Beatles famously signed away their songwriting royalties on a train without a lawyer present and before they had any idea how much their work would be worth. It unfortunate, but many artists are willing to forego their futures for signing bonuses and advances they will never be able to afford to pay back.
While I appreciate the stand you are taking, it’d have more worth if you singled out the real villains in this matter: Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, and Warner. Spotify has paid about $1 billion in royalties since 2009, which amounts to 70 % of its profits. How much has Universal or Warner made in that time? How much have they paid? Have you even bothered asking?
As for Bob Lefsetz, he’s used to taking cheap shots from dinosaurs. He knows that many artists don’t like the new world, but he’s trying to help them adapt to it. You don’t have to love streaming. But you do have to accept it. The days of $17 CDs at Sound Exchange are over and they’re not coming back. You either welcome all the new opportunities and embrace it, or strap on your apron and get to work down at the local coffee shop. Not everyone was born to be Michael Jackson or Taylor Swift.
“Spotify has paid $1 billion in royalties since 2009, which amounts to 70% of its profits”. In a vacuum, this line is good supporting evidence for Spotify’s existence. But I think Michael’s point is that the 70% still isn’t even close to resembling fair compensation for artists. You even allude to this by mentioning Lowery’s case ($20 for 1 million plays). It’s great, I guess, that Spotify is paying 70% of its profits but when that amounts to a few cents/dollars per artist, it really doesn’t move the needle. When those artists signed the deals with UNI/Sony/WEA/et al. they had no idea something like Spotify would ever exist, much less be the go-to medium for listening to music.
And yes, as a record store owner, I’m acutely aware of the greed of the major labels. Sony and UNI, in particular, greeted the emerging “vinyl resurgence” by increasing the cost of new vinyl.. In Sony’s case, about 100 key titles (Outkast, DMB, Janis, Springsteen, John Mayer, Wu-Tang among others) were simply repriced in July of this year, often by a markup of 75%+ so titles that once cost 13.99 and could be sold for 19.99 now cost stores 23.99 with a 34.99 MSRP. Way to know your audience, Sony! The college kids that make up the bulk of the new vinyl converts can now buy a whopping 2-3 new records for $100. I’ll be rooting for Lowery and co. in their suit against Spotify because it could, possibly, create enough noise for consumers to realize that artists are getting dicked around. As Corcoran notes above, Spotify needs to establish a fair rate that fairly compensates all artists and if people won’t pay it, then go the way of the dodo. Start by doing right by the artists, not the consumers. If the business model doesn’t work in that framework, it doesn’t need to exist.