Skid Row Row Your Boat Gently Down A Stream

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/dee-snider-sebastian-bach-and-mike-portnoy-react-to-spotify-ceo-what-a-greedy-little-bitch/

Here's what happens when old rockers don't read the Terms of Service.  And it backs up what I've been saying for years now: if you're looking for money from music, focus on sales and not streams.

I'm going to comment on this one line by line and maybe by the end, we can figure out why some of these Drama Queens, like Sebastian Bach, are so out of touch these days.

TWISTED SISTER singer Dee Snider, former SKID ROW frontman Sebastian Bach and ex-DREAM THEATER drummer Mike Portnoy are among the musicians who have taken issue with Spotify CEO Daniel Ek's suggestion that artists need to be more prolific in the streaming age.

Remember all those times I suggested if you wanted to make music for the rest of your life, you should have a day job too?  It's good advice.

For years, Spotify has been criticized for offering paltry payouts to musicians and songwriters, with some claiming that the service gives major-label artists an unfair advantage via playlist placement and other promotional avenues.

In an interview published Thursday, Ek told Music Ally: "Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify], I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, 'I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming,' stating that publicly. In private, they have done that many times, but in public, they have no incentive to do it. But unequivocally, from the data, there are more and more artists that are able to live off streaming income in itself.

"There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can't record music once every three to four years and think that's going to be enough," he continued.

That's important, actually.  People's attention spans (myself included) have gotten shorter.  Even at home any more, I'm usually recording something.  I might put it out, I might not but that's because I always like new stuff, and the more the better.  You can't put out 30/40 minutes of music every two years and just sit back and coast, especially if the style of music you're doing hasn't been in fashion for 30 years.

"The artists today that are making it realize that it's about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans.

Makes sense.  What these babies should do is film the recording session and put mini-docs out up until the release.  Create an interest instead of just hiring an Ad/PR agency to promote the release and then not do anything after it's out.  I always wondered why people spend more time promoting something that's not available instead of something that is.

"I feel, really, that the ones that aren't doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released," he added.

He is mostly right.  The thing I don't believe is "there are more and more artists that are able to live off streaming income in itself."  Maybe if the artist is still living in their parents' basement and have no expenses, then someone could live off streaming income but I doubt they would be living comfortably just from that.

A number of notable artists have since fired back at Ek over his suggestion that artists need to churn out more content if they want to the same money they used to, with many in the music community saying that's just not how the creative process works.

"While you (the listener) benefit & enjoy Spotify, it's part of what's killing a major income stream for artist/creators," Snider tweeted. "The amount of artists 'rich enough' to withstand this loss are about .0001%. Daniel Ek's solution is for us to write & record more on our dime?! Fuck him!"

You'd better get to work since this is the way things are currently and will be for the foreseeable future.  Also, sales haven't been the major income stream for a long time.  Performance royalties would probably be the major income stream for a band that had a hit in the 80s and doesn't tour anymore, unless you had a stroke of luck and that song wound up in a movie or a video game.  Dee's "Daniel Ek's solution is for us to write & record more on our dime" is a little off.  It's not the solution but it doesn't look good for someone like Mr Bach since more of his solo songs isn't what anyone wants or needs.  There's millions of songs on Spotify, why would I waste my time listening to 80s "metal" when it wasn't even good at the time?

Bach also chimed in, writing: "When this guy puts out an album himself I will listen to him tell me about my albums."

It could be the lack of punctuation or lack of smarts but he should have said, "...I will listen to him tell me about my albums and how they tank out of the gate."  I think his last CD was certified Paper by the RIAA.

Portnoy was equally critical of Ek's comments, tweeting: "What a greedy little bitch...it's bad enough that he's worth BILLIONS based on stealing and giving away other musician's music...but now he's suggesting we need to make MORE music for HIM to make more money!!! F-@Spotify and F-@eldsjal

You know why he's rich?  Because he obviously did something right.  You know that Spotify isn't a payday, unless you didn't read the TOS.  Opt out if it bothers you so much.  I used to opt out of having my stuff on Tidal, since I didn't like the owners (they were celebrities calling themselves artists).  It's easy to opt out.  And how exactly is Ek "stealing and giving away other musician's music"?  We may never know the answer.

"I have 8 full album releases in 2020 & will make PEANUTS on them (if anything at all...) So his theory of artists needing to make MORE music to succeed is shit! F-@eldsjal & F-@Spotify! Support THE ARTISTS DIRECTLY if you want them to be able to continue to make music..."

He should have put his songs on BandCamp so people could buy them.  If you want more money from streams, talk to your label or manager to see if they can get you a better deal.  As good as Mr Portnoy is, what he plays on is for a pretty niche market; not a lot of Prog Metal in the charts.  They may be the best fans in the world but it's not a huge number.  He'd be better off playing sessions, at least he can do that whereas Dee and Mr Bach are out of luck on that one. 

Here's why all of these belly-achers are so dumb.  They're so hung up on streaming yet they want to make money.  As I mentioned at the top: focus on sales.  Treat your streams as promotion for the sale, then you'd get the money for the sale AND the stream.  I have zero sympathy for these three Extra Chromosomers.  They've known forever that money is in the touring, and wait for it, merchandise.  But people don't stream merchandise, they sell it.  It's income.  But someone like Bach would still want $0.02 for every time you wore the T-shirt that you bought at his show.

Since I hiked my stuff over to DistroKid, I have 5 or 6 things up on Spotify.  You know how much I expect to make from streams?  $0.  I expect the same out of sales too so anything to me, is a bonus.  And thankfully over the years, I have seen minor payouts and I'm still thrilled that happened.  I'm not here for the money, I'm here because I thoroughly enjoy making music whether it's playing guitar, making the songs, being my own engineer, mixing, making the cover.  I enjoy the whole process, especially since it's all from home and I'm not wasting a gross amount of money going into a recording studio.  Thank God I'm not on a label either.  Also, I don't have to cater to an audience.  The only one that has to like what I do is me since I'm the guy that's going to be listening to it the most.  If someone else does and likes it, then great, if not, no big deal.  At the end of the day, I'm happy. 

And I still haven't figured out why Drama Queens, like Sebastian Bach, are so out of touch these days.

Taylor Not-So-Swift

Is she cute?  Sure.  Is she a musical talent?  Not so much.  Really, other than her looks, she doesn't have much at all.  Nothing substantial anyways.

This isn't sour grapes that I didn't get a free ride through life and that I'm not a lame "entertainer" pop star.  This is actually a bigger problem with "independent artists" thinking and that they somehow believe they're entitled to payment if someone streams their song.  Seriously.  And then they wonder why all of a sudden they have to pay to use a streaming service.

I hate to say it but I am an "Independent Artist" (never liked the sound of it) and the only thing I'm dependent on is CD Baby to setup and warehouse my CDs.  I have to do all other aspects (write, record, play, promote) myself and after all that time spent, you know what I think is fair and honest?  Payment for a "sale", not a "listen". 

Years ago, when record labels shot themselves in the foot for their lack of creativity on how to work digital downloads ("Duh, let's sell it through iTunes"), and shrunk their rosters to keep the best garbage, it's no wonder why they're going broke and most radio-music is pretty awful.  If you're a music label and you're relying on non-musicians to stay afloat, you're going to have some big problems because you've ruined your reputation and you've ruined the service for real "artists".  Now the people that could give your company any credibility has to go out and get a day job.

So when I hear some two-dimensional, already rich entertainer belly ache she's not going to get royalties for an album that her producer put together ("This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create."), I get pretty annoyed.  If anyone's unqualified to complain, it's her.  "These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child", she says but actually, they are.  Her "every artist, writer and producer in my social circles" sound like it could be the same group in Jay-Z's circles.  Personally, I don't think her song writers and producers deserve a dime because they're not making or contributing anything substantial or worthwhile but at the same time looking for a handout. 

I'm not selling my stuff for cheap* because I don't think it's good enough, I'm selling my songs at 50 cents each because I think it's a pretty fair price.  A dollar or $1.50 for a three minute song is more than a little wrong and there's no reason people should pay $10 - $14 for an mp3 "album" especially when there isn't any artwork or credits.

But yes, the real problem is "artists" today think they should get paid for a listen of their song.  I still haven't heard a valid argument to justify that.  Actually, I haven't heard any argument as to why that would be a good idea.  If anyone reads this entry, please write me back with a valid argument on the pro side of getting paid for streams.

Anyways, Taylor, you're not an artist.  Since you're not really that involved with anything but yourself, the 3 month trial is called "promotion" (pronounced: pruh-moh-shun) to hopefully get more people on the service to maybe buy more of your lackluster albums.  It actually works in your favour if you'd settle down and think for a second.  Also, if you're really the talent you think you are, you wouldn't have to rely on writers and producers.  Jay-Z has this problem too.  Try being an "artist" and make something yourself.  Try it.  It's actually more rewarding.  Unfortunately, it seems the only thing you're capable of making is a baby.  And complaining.

Sorry, folks. I get tired hearing people bitch that are actually part of the problem and not the solution.  And thanks to Eddy Cue from Apple for his Grade 5 Tweets and for again being part of the problem by caving into to a child.  He just made Taylor Swift a true inspiration to whiners all around the world.

Here's her letter to Crapple:

To Apple, Love Taylor

I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.

These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.

I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out. Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.

But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

Taylor

Comments on the Letter

• Well, getting through this open letter without getting shit on my own nose was a challenge.  There's so much.

• Oh no, you're holding back your album.  It doesn't deserve an explanation, but if it makes your swelled head feel better than by all means.

• So exactly, how many up and coming artists are going to be putting their hits out in the next 3 months?  All of them?

• Streaming isn't beautiful progress.  I'm not sure how many 3-4 syllable adjectives you need to use after every noun.  Who writes her blurbs, George Howard from Forbes?  And if Apple is working towards streaming and not sales, I would be super pissed if I owned a record company.  Apple certainly isn't capable of being a record label, especially after doing an about-face because of a single complaint from a current celebrity.

• How one can compare iPhones with music just plain doesn't make sense.  She may as well said, we don't ask you for forks, please don't take our tents. 

 

*Bright Ideas - Volume 2 is out now.  Please have a listen using the player.  And no, I'm not looking for a royalty.