MUSIC: Joanna Newsom Attacks Spotify

I like Joanna Newsom a lot.  Joanna Newsom is cool.

Joanna Newsom is also the latest artist to complain about streaming eating into her bank account – she specifically mentions Spotify, but her music isn’t available on any streaming service.

 

The lovely Joanna Newsom

After some typically eccentric comparisons to bananas she said:

“Spotify is like a villainous cabal of major labels. The business is built from the ground up as a way to circumvent the idea of paying their artists. The major labels were not particularly happy with the fact that as the royalty money dwindled more and more, their portion of the percentage split agreed upon in their licensing agreement got smaller and smaller.”

Now she does have a point – but unfortunately, fairly or not, these complaints from artists are beginning to annoy music fans.

Essentially the problem for artists is that Spotify pay all the royalties, the labels take a massive cut, and the artist gets a fraction.  Spotify responded to Newsom’s complaint by tweeting that they pay 70% of their revenue in royalties to labels, $3 billion to date.  They make the point – and I believe it’s a fair one – that the problem lies with the artists’ contracts.

Who would’ve thought it, the music industry screwing over artists?

And that’s the point – it’s the industry screwing them over.  It’s not us.  I read a rant like that and my gut reaction is “well, what do you expect me to do about it?”  Or more succinctly, “boo hoo”.

Artists need to start getting their managers to renegotiate contracts with the labels instead of washing their dirty linen in public because it’s not a good look for them.  It’s like when bankers complain about not getting big enough bonuses – it pisses off the larger part of society that are struggling on minimum wages and hiking rent prices (soon to be exacerbated in the UK with the loss of tax credits but that’s another story altogether…)

Home Streaming Is Killing Music?

The fact is people who pay for music are going to go for the most cost-effective option.  If you have to live on a tight budget, music is going to come under the ‘luxury item’ category.  I used to spend a fortune on music, even though I was shopping in discount places like Fopp.  But I couldn’t really afford to do that, to the point where my love of music was getting me into financial trouble.  Spotify seemed like a good compromise – paying for music without pirating, and at the same time actually staying in the black (well, sometimes).

So when people I respect and admire – Thom Yorke is another – come out in force against streaming, it doesn’t make me think “right on, tell it like it is”.  It makes me think they don’t understand my situation, or that of a lot of their fans.  It especially seems like a U-turn from Yorke, who was willing to let people pay whatever they felt was fair for ‘In Rainbows’ in 2009.  Well Thom, a lot of people have decided that £9.99 a month is fair given their circumstances, and your response is to have a little moan and take all your music away from them.

As far as I’m concerned it’s not a good look.  People who are streaming are paying for music legally – it’s not realistic to tell customers they should pay more.  Because frankly, there’s a significant amount of those customers who will call your bluff and go back to torrents.  Look at this comic from The Oatmeal – it’s about television rather than music, but the principle’s the same.

This is all reminiscent of the ‘home taping is killing music’ scare of the 80s.  But this time it’s not the big bosses (‘The Man’), it’s the artists who we like to think of as being on our side.  Like I say, I’m not saying artists don’t have a point about being ripped off, but they need to take this up with their labels and managers instead of slagging off the streaming companies because when they do that the implication is that people shouldn’t be streaming.  Which means that they are blaming their own fans, that somehow it’s our fault.  It paints the user as the bad guy, forgetting how much we actually have to pay even for downloads, let alone CDs (and ticket prices, and all that shiny pricey merchandise…)

Not engaging with streaming is starting to make artists look out of touch.  Streaming as a medium is staying.  If Spotify closed down tomorrow (and they don’t make a profit, so who knows?) that wouldn’t change.  Apple Music has further legitimised it as the future, as downloads from iTunes slowly and softly vanish away.  Artists need to deal with it in a more positive way, at least in public, or risk alienating their audience.

PS Joanna Newsom's album, Divers, is out on Friday.  I've pre-ordered it because I like her.  But there are going to be an awful lot of people out there who will be torrenting it and perhaps her entire back catalogue.  I don't condone that in the slightest.  But it is a fact that that is what will happen.  Attack those people Joanna.

MUSIC: Thom Yorke and U2

Hey, look guys, it’s something we’ve never seen before – big names in the music world releasing stuff in a like, totally different way!  You know, like Beyonce did last year!

Or indeed, Radiohead did with 2010’s In Rainbows.  Let’s face it, the selling of music (as opposed to the making of it) has always loved a gimmick.  And you wait a year for a gimmicky music release then two show up at once.  

Let’s look at Thom Yorke first.  His latest solo album has been released on BitTorrent as an attempt to find a way for artists to be able to still earn a decent wage in these dark days of Spotify.  It’s not actually a novelty for Yorke to be releasing his album like this, not that much of one anyway.  He’s a man with a keen interest in technology and the music industry and always has been.  

Tomorrow's Modern Boxes - the music is about as colourful as the cover,
come to think of it.

I’ve delayed writing about this subject for a week or two because I really like Thom Yorke and I was trying to give his solo album more of a chance.  Unfortunately the album, Tomorrow’s Modern Boxes is a little bit boring and very short, and the thing about a gimmick is that it’s a great way to set off a word-of-mouth campaign only if you’ve got some really good, like amazing product to sell.  But the album isn’t really good, or at least not good enough to give Yorke’s message enough weight.  It’s not awful either, but it doesn’t inspire the urge to spread the word.  It’s the worst thing you can have from an artist like Yorke – from someone who is seen as such an innovator, it’s very meh. 

The In Rainbows ‘Download and Pay-What-You-Want’ stunt worked at starting a debate about online music for a lengthier period of time (although not really that much lengthier) because the music on that album is outstanding.  And that was never actually going to be a meaningful direction for the future except for people who were already rich and could afford to take a risk in order to look cool (which is why Yorke’s stance against Spotify seems ridiculous as he is more responsible than most artists for encouraging the idea that digital music need not necessarily be paid for).  This new BitTorrent idea is a much more realistic proposition as a business model that could work, but because the content is uninspiring it will be ignored.  Also, it has been said that they see paying for a package through BitTorrent to be seen as an alternative to streaming music, but to me I can’t see that much of a difference between buying a BitTorrent package or an album through iTunes or Amazon.  It’s based on an old system, an album-buying system.  We’re in a world where a lot of people value diverse content more than 8 mediocre songs by the same person.  A last point about this - Thom Yorke is an established name, but if he wasn't how would we know what his album sounds like?  There's no airplay I'm aware of, it's not on Spotify or other streaming clients, you can't buy individual tracks on Amazon.  A new artist would not break through and be recognised through this business model.

Although it might  be slightly cheaper buying a BitTorrent 'album' there’s a reason why people associate torrents with pirating, and the idea of people paying any money at all for a torrent file at the moment seems laughable.  I’m by no means arguing that it is right to pirate by downloading torrent files, but it’s surely no secret that people who currently download torrent files are highly unlikely to be paying money for them right now, and it’s going to be very hard to encourage them to start.  It’s an alternative to streaming only if it is for free.  Which is expressly against Thom Yorke’s point.

And then there’s U2.  Their gimmick – having an album appear on Apple users’ gadgets overnight for free – actually is quite a sweet intentioned one and has been pretty successful for them.  Songs of Innocence is 13 (down from 6) in the album charts and so it’s not exactly been the ‘massive backfire’ some people in the press have dubbed it.  

Songs of Innocence's dreadful cover. Wonder what the follow up album
could possibly be called...?

However, it is a bit embarrassing if as an artist you demonstrably can’t give your music away to people.  To the extent Apple had to release an app to help people get rid of it.  People felt that having music put on their phone was something akin to an invasion of privacy.  I think that is perhaps overstating it slightly, but then I’m an Android user so what do I know?

Rather like Radiohead’s In Rainbows trick way-back-when, this idea of giving an album away for free is not a business model that can work for any band that doesn’t have more money than they need.  It was a shame that Bono had to apologise to people for what was intended as an egalitarian gesture.  It was definitely a gesture made by a band who are out of touch with their own popularity but it’s not really done them any harm.  In fact it’s done them a massive favour because if this album had been released in the traditional fashion hardly anyone would be talking about it.  As with Tomorrow’s Modern Boxes it is an album that comes and goes without making much of an impression.  Whereas Yorke’s music sounds unassuming quite a lot of the time however, U2 are going for epic, Epic, EPIC all the time and reliably not getting there.  It achieves the job of making a U2 album well enough but doesn’t seem to be interested in doing anything else at the same time.

Really this is the issue with U2 and Thom Yorke’s albums – it’s become about the medium and not the message for them now.  Or rather they think that the message is best expressed through the medium rather than through their art, since that's where they've chosen to put the emphasis in their interviews and promotion.  On hearing these albums it is no surprise whatsoever that the only things I have read about them in the press or heard about in conversation have been to do with downloads etc, rather than the music.  Regardless of intent when musicians talk more about the method of buying their latest album more than their art they sound only one step away from describing how an iPod works.  

These are artists clearly more interested, Yorke especially, with music formats and the future of the music industry than with the actual music.  Yorke seems keen to really change the way we listen now, but needs to seriously work on having some more interesting and exciting music if he wants to do that.  I’ve deliberately delayed this post to give both albums a fair hearing but I don’t think these are growers – they’re just some of the emperor’s clothes being repackaged again for the digital age.