Most nuanced take I’ve read about this book, which I’m in the middle of. Such an important conversation and the book is really well researched but I’m always concerned that we are longing to return to some era that never existed
Absolutely. Her solutions are all about this idea that musicians are entitled to compensation for their labor - which is sometimes true, but often totally insane. And if you didn’t know better you’d think Spotify had eliminated all artist communities, when in fact there are new communities that wouldn’t exist without streaming and social media.
Agreed. And I feel part of the issue is that being an artist today is so much easier. You can distribute your music to the world for next to nothing. I wouldn’t want to go back to a world where that wasn’t the case.
Great context especially about misplaced nostalgia for an era that was really f’d up (Blog-o-verse2005!), but I’m still stuck and can not give any pass on the thing where Spotify takes the revenue that used to go to every song from spin #1, and now unless you’ve had 1,000 spins on that track in past 12 months, they pay you zero, and in fact pool that “saved” money up proportionally - which means most of the songs you and I release AND the album tracks by say, every great blues artist not named Muddy or Lightning - all that money ends up going to the highest paid / played artists - starting with say, Drake and Taylor.
You kinda brushed that off - like, because you are a successful lawyer and music is a hobby (or me as a DJ), you shouldn’t be compensated from spin #1 for your art, and I just don’t get how you can excuse Spotify for this. I don’t.
I have a new indie rock song out this month with like 4,000 spins from 3,000 people in 53 countries - I acknowledge that this would not have been possible for the me with a 45 circa 1985 or CD 1995 or 2005 - but it still stings to know that this will earn us about $12, and most likely in 12 months that track will stop paying us anything at all.
Man, I hear you. I don’t like the policy and I won’t defend it. But because I’m a lawyer for artists who need a lawyer, the issue is sort of under my radar. Maybe it’s a mindset thing, but I’ve had about a hundred thousand Spotify streams, and I see that is sorta insignificant, hobbyist numbers, like selling a few hundred CDs in the day. I have clients who have songs with over half a million a day. It’s perspective. My own advocacy is pretty specific. But yeah, it is shitty and I am opposed to it in principle. Just don’t think about it because my brain is full these days.
I understand what you are saying, but then it’s like selling a couple hundred CDs and instead of taking that money from the indie record store on consignment, having them send the money to MC Hammer or Staind or whoever was selling the most CDs back in those days. Is there any other industry or product where this happens?
And sure - I hang out a lot in small clubs with local bands and so-called “hobby” bands who don’t tour and aren’t in a position to make this their FT job, but does that mean they don’t deserve compensation when they play shows or their fans stream their songs? Are they not artists - rehearsing and recording and playing shows?
I heard the number of demonetized tracks was over 80% - songs that received payments for up to a decade, but no longer do. This could be most of the catalog of the same artists that were often underpaid back in the day. Meet the new boss, same as old boss.
They created this rule out of thin air a year ago - it can be undone or changed if bigger artists stand in solidarity, and if people that have the ear of Spotify execs make their outrage known.
Red Clay Strays are a good band that has worked hard to build a following with heartfelt songs that have captured an audience. But they did not start as such. And are they psyched that on some level the spins and audience of baby artists, “hobbyists” and dead blues and jazz artists are going to them?
You are someone with enough influence and audience to maybe move this needle. I’ve spent years within radio saying that we should pay something for master use. Execs have told me I was crazy and called me a traitor. You could be a lawyer that advocates for all artists to be paid for their work. Because once you allow a company to skip on 1,000 spins, who is to stop them raising that threshold higher?
Thanks, John. Very interesting overview of the state of play for existing artists. Your artists look like they're in good hands.
Was 'lean-in' vs 'lean-back' listening always the case? Or is it something that evolved out of changes in the music business and in the economy and culture to the point that now most of the people I know have no clue where to find new music that they like? In fact, they don't think new music is being created except by the likes of Taylor Swift. (I didn't realize it myself until I got on substack and found a lot of authors who did the new music searching and sharing for everyone else!)
Whereas until the takeovers and mergers of radio stations, people across the country could find new music being introduced by their local DJs. You didn't have to lean in, it was right there on the radio dial where you could take a listen and see if you liked it. Before that you could go to your local record shop and listen to albums. So those who leaned in, like the DJs and record shop employees, could let people who leaned back know what to check out.
Where is that now? If spotify's algorithm pushes AI music, low-royalty library music, and artists promoted through Discovery Mode (once their music lawyer explains to them why they should do it), to me that means the system is remarkably broken.
We aren't necessarily getting what we want but what's being served up to us. You want fish? Sorry, it's fake fish sticks made from cockroaches or food being discounted by wholesalers to promote and move it.
I don't blame my friends for not searching for new music in a system like this. The same thing has happened in entertainment streaming and with books and with google searches, and everyone I know complains that they can't find things to watch or read except through recommendations, and they can't find what they want on google. What's being pushed on them by the platforms is what those platforms want to serve up, not what their algorithm should know they would like based on their past choices or the explicit search terms they enter. The platforms don't care what you like or want anymore.
People are walking away from these systems even when they would like good products and services. It seems time for another major disruption to replace the greedy robber baron tech bros with a system that serves us, even if we have to create it at the localized grassroots level and grow it from there. In the meantime, I hope everyone is able to get assistance from someone like you who can help them navigate the crazy system we have now.
Was there lean back listening before streaming? Of course. There’s always been passive and active listening. Algorithms work pretty well in observing your listening and making suggestions. If you listen to nothing but mainstream country, that is what you’ll get. I know it isn’t as simple as algorithms push low royalty music - if that were the case many of us would move on. Algorithms are influenced by our reactions and behaviors.
Great stuff John and always enlightening. In the last five years my enthusiasm for new artists has grown 100x if not 1000x, fueled by Spotify playlists—one of which is the Discover Weekly. As a result of these finds I also now go to at least 20 shows a year. Not that impressive but I live in the ATL burbs and am 56 so venturing into the city to Terminal West, Variety Playhouse, Eastern, Bad Earl et Al is a commitment. Anyway, from my anecdotal experience, Spotify has been more positive than negative. And if I can support the bands through ticket sales it makes me feel less guilty about them getting so little in the way of royalties. (I did not mean to turn this reply into a TL;DR but you got me worked up!)
Fabulous article. I like that you are situating Spotify in the historical context of promotions & distribution. These two parts:
1) "If you’re shocked by the revelations in Mood Machine, you’d be horrified if you knew how major labels have operated for a century." and
2) "Pitchfork was a net negative for artists, because it unfairly clogged the gates for many artists who deserved a shot."
I think we all know the pitfalls of last systems, from indies and major labels to radio to touring. Women in particular, faced some shit. I always read in your approach a punk DIY instinct to question any of these structures.
I worry a little more than you do maybe, about the growth of AI for "working class" musicians. I think there's a slot between hobbyists & artists that may continue to be squeezed (and maybe that's just unavoidable). Your analysis seems right to me- in terms of their affects on artists.
My son has come of age and found his own stuff through Spotify, where he & buddies trade obscure Swedish cloud rap, Japanese shoegaze & whatnot in a competion for the most obscure. "Getting" J Mascis as a teen was revelatory: "Wow this guy really doesn't give a shit what we think, does he?" was his reaction. Dinosaur really captured his imagination on what musicians could be.
Most nuanced take I’ve read about this book, which I’m in the middle of. Such an important conversation and the book is really well researched but I’m always concerned that we are longing to return to some era that never existed
Absolutely. Her solutions are all about this idea that musicians are entitled to compensation for their labor - which is sometimes true, but often totally insane. And if you didn’t know better you’d think Spotify had eliminated all artist communities, when in fact there are new communities that wouldn’t exist without streaming and social media.
People don’t always want nuance though, they want outrage.
Agreed. And I feel part of the issue is that being an artist today is so much easier. You can distribute your music to the world for next to nothing. I wouldn’t want to go back to a world where that wasn’t the case.
Great context especially about misplaced nostalgia for an era that was really f’d up (Blog-o-verse2005!), but I’m still stuck and can not give any pass on the thing where Spotify takes the revenue that used to go to every song from spin #1, and now unless you’ve had 1,000 spins on that track in past 12 months, they pay you zero, and in fact pool that “saved” money up proportionally - which means most of the songs you and I release AND the album tracks by say, every great blues artist not named Muddy or Lightning - all that money ends up going to the highest paid / played artists - starting with say, Drake and Taylor.
You kinda brushed that off - like, because you are a successful lawyer and music is a hobby (or me as a DJ), you shouldn’t be compensated from spin #1 for your art, and I just don’t get how you can excuse Spotify for this. I don’t.
I have a new indie rock song out this month with like 4,000 spins from 3,000 people in 53 countries - I acknowledge that this would not have been possible for the me with a 45 circa 1985 or CD 1995 or 2005 - but it still stings to know that this will earn us about $12, and most likely in 12 months that track will stop paying us anything at all.
Man, I hear you. I don’t like the policy and I won’t defend it. But because I’m a lawyer for artists who need a lawyer, the issue is sort of under my radar. Maybe it’s a mindset thing, but I’ve had about a hundred thousand Spotify streams, and I see that is sorta insignificant, hobbyist numbers, like selling a few hundred CDs in the day. I have clients who have songs with over half a million a day. It’s perspective. My own advocacy is pretty specific. But yeah, it is shitty and I am opposed to it in principle. Just don’t think about it because my brain is full these days.
I understand what you are saying, but then it’s like selling a couple hundred CDs and instead of taking that money from the indie record store on consignment, having them send the money to MC Hammer or Staind or whoever was selling the most CDs back in those days. Is there any other industry or product where this happens?
And sure - I hang out a lot in small clubs with local bands and so-called “hobby” bands who don’t tour and aren’t in a position to make this their FT job, but does that mean they don’t deserve compensation when they play shows or their fans stream their songs? Are they not artists - rehearsing and recording and playing shows?
I heard the number of demonetized tracks was over 80% - songs that received payments for up to a decade, but no longer do. This could be most of the catalog of the same artists that were often underpaid back in the day. Meet the new boss, same as old boss.
They created this rule out of thin air a year ago - it can be undone or changed if bigger artists stand in solidarity, and if people that have the ear of Spotify execs make their outrage known.
Red Clay Strays are a good band that has worked hard to build a following with heartfelt songs that have captured an audience. But they did not start as such. And are they psyched that on some level the spins and audience of baby artists, “hobbyists” and dead blues and jazz artists are going to them?
You are someone with enough influence and audience to maybe move this needle. I’ve spent years within radio saying that we should pay something for master use. Execs have told me I was crazy and called me a traitor. You could be a lawyer that advocates for all artists to be paid for their work. Because once you allow a company to skip on 1,000 spins, who is to stop them raising that threshold higher?
Thanks, John. Very interesting overview of the state of play for existing artists. Your artists look like they're in good hands.
Was 'lean-in' vs 'lean-back' listening always the case? Or is it something that evolved out of changes in the music business and in the economy and culture to the point that now most of the people I know have no clue where to find new music that they like? In fact, they don't think new music is being created except by the likes of Taylor Swift. (I didn't realize it myself until I got on substack and found a lot of authors who did the new music searching and sharing for everyone else!)
Whereas until the takeovers and mergers of radio stations, people across the country could find new music being introduced by their local DJs. You didn't have to lean in, it was right there on the radio dial where you could take a listen and see if you liked it. Before that you could go to your local record shop and listen to albums. So those who leaned in, like the DJs and record shop employees, could let people who leaned back know what to check out.
Where is that now? If spotify's algorithm pushes AI music, low-royalty library music, and artists promoted through Discovery Mode (once their music lawyer explains to them why they should do it), to me that means the system is remarkably broken.
We aren't necessarily getting what we want but what's being served up to us. You want fish? Sorry, it's fake fish sticks made from cockroaches or food being discounted by wholesalers to promote and move it.
I don't blame my friends for not searching for new music in a system like this. The same thing has happened in entertainment streaming and with books and with google searches, and everyone I know complains that they can't find things to watch or read except through recommendations, and they can't find what they want on google. What's being pushed on them by the platforms is what those platforms want to serve up, not what their algorithm should know they would like based on their past choices or the explicit search terms they enter. The platforms don't care what you like or want anymore.
People are walking away from these systems even when they would like good products and services. It seems time for another major disruption to replace the greedy robber baron tech bros with a system that serves us, even if we have to create it at the localized grassroots level and grow it from there. In the meantime, I hope everyone is able to get assistance from someone like you who can help them navigate the crazy system we have now.
Was there lean back listening before streaming? Of course. There’s always been passive and active listening. Algorithms work pretty well in observing your listening and making suggestions. If you listen to nothing but mainstream country, that is what you’ll get. I know it isn’t as simple as algorithms push low royalty music - if that were the case many of us would move on. Algorithms are influenced by our reactions and behaviors.
Great stuff John and always enlightening. In the last five years my enthusiasm for new artists has grown 100x if not 1000x, fueled by Spotify playlists—one of which is the Discover Weekly. As a result of these finds I also now go to at least 20 shows a year. Not that impressive but I live in the ATL burbs and am 56 so venturing into the city to Terminal West, Variety Playhouse, Eastern, Bad Earl et Al is a commitment. Anyway, from my anecdotal experience, Spotify has been more positive than negative. And if I can support the bands through ticket sales it makes me feel less guilty about them getting so little in the way of royalties. (I did not mean to turn this reply into a TL;DR but you got me worked up!)
Fabulous article. I like that you are situating Spotify in the historical context of promotions & distribution. These two parts:
1) "If you’re shocked by the revelations in Mood Machine, you’d be horrified if you knew how major labels have operated for a century." and
2) "Pitchfork was a net negative for artists, because it unfairly clogged the gates for many artists who deserved a shot."
I think we all know the pitfalls of last systems, from indies and major labels to radio to touring. Women in particular, faced some shit. I always read in your approach a punk DIY instinct to question any of these structures.
I worry a little more than you do maybe, about the growth of AI for "working class" musicians. I think there's a slot between hobbyists & artists that may continue to be squeezed (and maybe that's just unavoidable). Your analysis seems right to me- in terms of their affects on artists.
My son has come of age and found his own stuff through Spotify, where he & buddies trade obscure Swedish cloud rap, Japanese shoegaze & whatnot in a competion for the most obscure. "Getting" J Mascis as a teen was revelatory: "Wow this guy really doesn't give a shit what we think, does he?" was his reaction. Dinosaur really captured his imagination on what musicians could be.
I saw Liz interviewed by Sadie Dupuis a couple of weeks ago here in Philly. Super enlightening - and a fantastic book. Great insight here.