Spotify - What's in it for us?

There has been some interesting discussion amongst the music community of late about Spotify. Specifically the focus is on it's role as a new model for delivering music to the consumer and the impact it is having on artist royalty returns. An interesting comment was made recently by the Bass Music Blog in terms of how Spotify is great for the user but not so great for the actual creators of music.

We decided not to put our Label's music on Spotify because there really is no benefit for us in that relationship. Whilst our ideal would be to have consumers buy directly from us and receive 100% of the royalty, we do have a distributor that helps us get our content into online stores such as iTunes for a small fee. Now according to them "the revenues paid by Spotify are 50% of what the service generates globally divided amongst artists based on their number of plays and includes revenues from both advertising-funded 'free' accounts, and subscriber accounts". If, as many people are pointing out, Spotify is losing millions, where the hell is the other 50% going?

As an independent it's hard to get enough people to hear what we're doing, get people to buy it and make any money without having a huge marketing budget behind it (which, clearly, we don't have). And being pretty much unknown means that people aren't going to find our music without specifically searching for it or paying people like spotify or myspace or iTunes to feature our releases (something which only major labels seem to be able to secure).

We have to find our own ways to market/distribute our content using social media channels, directing people to our content in places that we have control of. The reality of doing this is that right now we won't actually need Spotify until the point that we enter the mainstream and people will know enough about us to just want to find our music on their platform (which might never happen).

We are using Twitter as a marketing platform, directing people to our website where they can buy music direct from us. Ultimately we want people to support us by buying our music so that we can continue doing it, not listen to it for free on Spotify. Even more so if 50% of every play is being siphoned off by the major label shareholders.

The music industry is endorsing a model that encourages people not to buy music but get it for nothing. Whilst they are clearly making money from the millions of plays and channel adverts, they are paying the artists next to nothing in return for using their product. So the consumer is getting product for free and the artist is getting nothing which, correct me if I'm wrong, is awfully similar to piracy. Basically the music industry is legitimising and endorsing this model because it is something they can make money from, which they couldn't with good old fashioned piracy.

So once again it's the people that actually make the music we all listen to that are being well and truly shafted. Only this time it's not just the music industry doing the shafting but also their previous arch enemies the digital industry.

Personally, I'd rather people shared our music through good ol' fashioned file sharing because it means that at least one person has bought it and that's 59p in the bank, which is more than we'll get from Spotify.

Maybe they should think about sharing some of the revenue from their ads with the artists because, let's face it, without the music there would be nothing to interrupt with their shitty ads.

'ere boss, you like that dance shizzle don't ya? Yeah, me too.

Ctrl Z vs The Freestylers -



This be a mash up that needs to be played on a large sound system - http://tinyurl.com/yhphjv6

And the A-Trak Remix of Yeah Yeah Yeahs



More french electronic stuff from france. It's Playbic. Flavour is great but I really like Mandrag
http://www.myspace.com/playbic

And the Ben Simms remix of Marco Bailey's 'Vision' is really rather strident.
On Juno

You don't have to be a looker to work here... but it helps!

I never thought anyone could knock The Pogues off the top spot as one of the ugliest bands in the world. But then came Razorlight, setting the standard for the shallow new wave of guitar brit fop, with cliff sized teeth and hair from a poorly shot 80's sex flick.

But by god, even they have been beaten.

Can anyone actually look The Enemy in the face without screaming? Seriously, their singer has a face like an badly fitted bin bag. And don't get me started about haunted, wonk haired La Roux.

There was a time when to be a chart topping band you had to have the sort of looks that could deftly fill the pages of Smash Hits, making make girls swoon and have boys furiously sweating off a handy one when mum wasn't looking.

Apparently "it's all about the music" these days. But is it, is it really?

I grew up in the 80's where there were two prerequisites for getting a record deal - Talent & Looks - Neither of which seem to be a requirement or criteria for success when looking for the next big thing. What on earth do A&R get paid to do if it's not signing bands, sacking the ugly ones or just totally blanking them and forgetting to tell them about photo shoots. Didn't it used be referred to as 'doing a Craig Logan'?

I mention the examples above, all of whom are fairly successful artists, however the substance of their material is somewhat dubious and actual talent questionable. The fact is, I'm not sure how much of a cultural impact they're going to have without meeting at least one of the criteria.

Let's have a quick think about some people who have their faults:

• Richard D James - a fairly unattractive man and ginger to boot. But his incredible pioneering experimentation created a genre of music that paved the way for the electronica sound infused in almost every pop song today.

• Radiohead - not lookers but they've written a few songs haven't they, some of which may have inspired a generation of young indie kids to looking further afield for material.

• Duran Duran - they had it all didn't they, the looks, the production, the songwriting skills, the swooning chicks. Super talented men.

• Robbie Williams - A total arse, but the ladies love him, he's a great performer and he also happens to have co-written the most played song ever
  

• Bananarama - Hot, mad, great pop songs. Did I mention they were hot?

So the thing is, if our pop stars are getting uglier and less talented you have wonder why none of the real talent out there is getting noticed and rising to the top. Maybe we've all become less discerning over the last few years and consider talent and beauty as a bit too flash - we are after all a nation that revels in the disappointment and failure of others. Mind you, that doesn't explain pop dwarfs '911' who, for some inexplicable reason, were hot shit back in '96.

Perhaps then it might be that music industry marketing campaigns have become so adept at pushing the hype that people believe they might actually die if they don't do as they're told and just BUY EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT'S NEW AND EXCITING AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR DULL MEANINGLESS LIFE NEEDS RIGHT NOW.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is if the Music industry wants to force us to endure a chart full of utter horse toss then they could at least make an effort to disguise the fact that it's shit by blinding us with sheer beauty.

Next up - Is La Roux haunted?