Intelligent Life On Planet Rock
Dylan gone from spotify
Posted by adze thuggery on 5 August 2009 - 7:01pm.
Did I miss the news? Anyone know the story? Other artists too?
- More from adze thuggery.
- Login or register to post comments
-
User login
Recently Updated
Hot Topics - Last 7 Days
Hot Topics - Last 4 Weeks
The Sites We Like
- Crying All The Way To The Chip Shop
- Culture Karma
- Freaky Trigger
- Fula Fula Ord
- The Ghosts Of Electricity
- Guardian Music Blog
- Idolator
- I Love Music
- Jude Rogers
- The Lefsetz Letter
- Mixmag
- Moistworks
- Nah Right
- No Rock And Roll Fun
- Paul Du Noyer
- Planet Mondo
- Popjustice
- Pretty Goes With Pretty
- The Arts Desk
- The Rising Storm
- The Rocking Vicar
- Scarlet Mist
- Sleevage
- WFMU Blog
Bargepole has a sharp intake
of breath as he confirms this is indeed the case, although he is relieved to note that the cover of 'bob dylan's dream' by the mighty roger whittaker remains !
are all sony artists about to disappear - I think we should be told!
Dylan AND Spotify in the same breath? It's like digital catnip.
It's quite uncommon for acts to pull their content from Spotify considering it's been live for close to a year now. The last big act to do it was probably Oasis.
Without knowing the specifics, it's hard to say exactly what has happened. But here's as much as I know about the procedures.
There are two sets of rights and two sets of licences to get music on Spotify. There are the master recording rights (which the label, in this case Columbia, control) and then there are the composition rights (controlled by the publisher). Either can object to the use and have the material withdrawn.
A quick check shows that other Columbia acts are still on there. So this is either a publisher objection (unlikely) or a Dylan/Dylan management objection (the most likely scenario).
When labels sign deals with these services, they do so for their entire repertoire unless the acts have very specific clauses in their contracts that exclude them automatically. The Beatles are the obvious example, but Metallica are another one because their rights ownership is very complex (they are signed to Warner in the US but Universal for the rest of the world). With the ingestion (i.e. digitising and uploading content) process, it's generally done on a label basis rather than act-by-act - often for reasons of speed and efficiency.
Depending on their contract, acts may not have assigned digital rights to their labels. This is straightforward for acts that are signed today as there will be digital-specific causes. But this becomes very complex for acts signed years ago. Dylan signed in the early 1960s when digital clauses did not exist. Obviously his contract will have been renegotiated many times since then, so it could be the case that Columbia need his consent to put his music on digital services. That strikes me as very unlikely. It's been on Spotify for ages and his management would have been well aware that it was on there. So that leaves just one conclusion - Dylan's "people" pulled it because they were not getting paid enough (but it's hard to say what anyone gets paid as it's early days for Spotify, the user base is small and royalties are backdated and will only be trickling through) or they feel his inclusion on Spotify is damaging album sales.
The conspiracy theorist in me could propose this: Dylan and his people want to negotiate better royalties and have yanked content before Spotify launches in the US. This puts them in a better bargaining position. But who that bargaining position is with is not clear. Is it Spotify itself? Unlikely because he probably won't own his master recordings outright and so it's Columbia's call as they will own the rights in perpetuity. So it could be Team Dylan trying to increase what Columbia pays for digital streaming. The timing with the imminent US launch of Spotify and it raising $50m in new funding is a bit TOO convenient to ignore.
This probably doesn't come close to explaining what it going on. But hopefully it hints at the massive complexities here.
p.s Gauntlet - I'm all embarrassed.
Ah, I meant to reply
to the original thread. Oh well, it's here now, so we'll have to step over the thread's corpulent frame.
Great stuff
Thanks Mr F.
A second....
thanks from me!!
Routemaster
What bus were you on when you wrote this?
Just an idea
but we have a TV column in the mag - can we have a music business one as well with Mr Forde?
maybe just an idea
but a damn good one!
Seconded
Thanks Eamonn,really interesting
I think the tide is turning
With the Murdoch news of today about no more free news online from his papers, with this apparent Dylan decision, with a number of other "content providers" waking up and smelling the coffee their money is making for other people while they're not even getting the skim off the milk.
I suspect the coming months will see a lot of artists pulling out of various streaming initiatives and even things like iTunes as they discover their work is being handed out for next to nowt.
The Websheriff strikes ...?
I read an article in Esquire last month, and before you start I was on holiday, at the airport, The Word wasn't out yet, and I never usually read it OK? Anyway, there was an interview with the so-called Websheriff who pops up here occasionally, in which he said that several labels had done deals with Spotify that were outside the terms of those labels' deals with their artists. He confidently predicted that with his assistance many of those artists would be removing their work from Spotify in the next few months. Maybe this is an example?
He was very successful in having those subversive videos removed from YouTube that showed small children singing 'Brown Eyed Girl' or taught you the chords to 'Caravan' and so - in some way I never quite grasped - prevented you from buying Van's CDs.
If we all shout loudly enough at the same time maybe the Websheriff will ride in and tell us if it was him? All together now .... "Oh Sheriff!!!"
Still on we7
Just checked - at this moment lots of albums still on we7, but will they disappear too?
We need Eamonn Forde.
He seems to be the man 'in the know' about Spotify.
(Also, he's lovely. *swoons*)
Only one...
album left on we7, also seems to be gone from last.fm and deezer.
isn't this some premium service sh*t?
or summat (sorry I've just the wire it'll were off in minute)
I was rtrying to locate (see I told you) the songh writer Paul simon and his high hair lined partner Mr Garfunkel and there was only one track available but tantalizingly they showed me all the others "greyed out" I asummed you could get them if you paid is this not the case?
Don't think so
Greyed out usually means by a different artist to the one you were searching. Spotify's search routine can be irritating. It's basic letter matching at its worst. If you search for Simon and Garfunkel you'll not get much, but if you search for Simon & Garfunkel you'll get lots more. I've learned to just enter part of the search term e.g. Garfunkel and see what options it offers. Won't help, though, with the ones that are mis-spelled as Garfunkle.
It's not a premium thing
Spotify's approach to get people to upgrade to premium is to:
- offer exclusives (so new tracks and pre-releases)
- improve audio quality (so tracks at 320kbps)
- extra functionality (if the iPhone app gets approved by Apple, that will be here)
Much as love Dylan, I don't think concealing his catalogue is enough of a carrot to get people to stump up £9.99 a month.
I just looked and Simon & Garfunkel are still on there. Screengrab here:
that's
odd the other night they wasn't there. As you were.
Until someone major spills the beans
we will never quite know the extent of how Spotify pays and how long the backdating takes to come through. My only source of information comes from a comment I made about a certain fave band of mine being missing in action from the site and their manager explained it was due to lack of readies being forthcoming, as discussed at a musicians conference or something similar.
It's a super site for dipping in and playing around with but I am staying married to the physical format for now thanks.
The thing is this
Digital is the growing part of the business, but it's still only 20% of total label income. They make most of their money from CD sales. And in the digital business it's skewed heavily towards downloading MP3s and one company, iTunes, controls 80% of that business. So you have hundreds of other services trying to survive and turn a profit in that tiny corner of the market that is not Apple-shaped.
It took the CD the best part of a decade to become the dominant format for music. The same will happen with digital. It's a classic "transition" period and we are moving from the notion of ownership (be it a CD or MP3) to access (Spotify being the glowing example). It's a high-risk business, consumer behaviour needs to be recalibrated etc. so none of these services can be a success out of the gate. They will pay advances to go live but base their model on paying rights owners a % of income. And that income will, for the few first years anyway, be granular.
The problem is that some artists and managers look at a service and see X users plus Y investment and put 2 and 2 together and come up with 15,000,000. They assume they should be getting paid more, but it takes a long time for a service to reach "scale". Even YouTube is struggling here. The short-termists want the money now. The long-termists understand they have to sit it out and, just as they take a risk on signing a band that could be Coldplay or could beCampag Velocet, so there is a risk on assigning rights to a new service.
If Spotify really explodes in the US, everyone stands to make a lot of money. But it needs to be given a chance and not driven out of business by people wanting their money NOW. That's not to say that Spotify shouldn't pay rights holders, it's just that everyone (labels, managers, Spotify, us consumers) need a bit of perspective here. The recorded music industry is massively damaged and a miracle cure will not happen over night.
Surely it's true
that in the good old days of yore most of the profit on a CD was made by the retailer. Yet in these digital days there seems to be an objection to this concept, unless the retailer is the artist themslves. then its a win-win...unless they want the status of chart positions.
And I didn't call you Shirley...
Retailers took about 25-40% of the CD sale.
They obviously had a dealer price from the label and bought CDs for, say, £8 per unit. So it was up to them to set the retail price and what their "margin" would be (so anything from £10 to £15).
I know it's true but when you say it out loud -
"consumer behaviour needs to be recalibrated" - it's quite depressing.
That line was intentionally purple prose and my tongue was in
my cheek when I wrote it. I should have used 'ironic' 'quote' 'mark'. Ho-hum.
at least you didn't use
monetize. That would be deep purple prose in my book.
I was too busy
getting my "low hanging fruit" all "in a row".
You could work in IT
if you carry on like that. Provided you have the bandwidth and the core competences to drive forward targeted growth with new logos.
Retail margins are now 6-10% on the whole
Paying less for CDs are you? Wonder why record shops are closing? These two things are linked. See also: bookshops, and in fact most other things.
People who work in industries need to get paid.
Dylan Dylan Dylan (Dylan)
Hasn´t every reader of the Massive already got at least two copies of every Dylan album and wouldn´t that do? Do we need to listen to him on Spotify as well?
All this while listening to Highway 61 Revisited.
NAME CALLING ...
WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com
Hi Steven (& Everyone),
Did we catch our name in the digital wind ?! ... .. funnily enough, our August issue of The Word (Beatles on cover) was bought at an airport too, although we're happy to stand up loud-and-proud for Esquire - another of the office 'staples'.
Just dropping-by to clarify two points ... .. first, anyone singing a cover of a famous song on YouTube is, generally speaking, very welcome to do so and, in the instances that you refer to, all that was asked of whomever uploaded the videos in question was that they afford the author and publisher the courtesy of a simple credit - not too onerous a request, surely ?? ... .. we know a famous music-attorney, who takes the "Let Them Eat Cake" / "Let Them Write Their Own Songs" view, but we disagree entirely, as fans are the life-blood of any artist ... .. as for the second point (Spotify), the theory of it is great but, currently, the business model side-of-things doesn't really stack-up for many artists ... .. and, whilst it may do at some point-in-time in the future, surely any artist - from aspiring band to megastar - is entitled to decide for themselves as to when they do (or do not) want to participate in this experiment ?? ... .. after all, it is their music.
Anyway, not here to bore folk with cyber-tales, so just wanted to add our Dime's worth to provide a (perhaps) different perspective ... .. although, that being said, Eamonn's words are as erudite as ever.
Best (to All),
WEB SHERIFF
I am impressed by your powers of hearing
it's almost like having access to the Batlight!
I really do not see the point of asking the families of singing children to include artist or publishing credits. Who benefits? Is it considered as a form of advertising for the artist or label? All those cute Van Morrison covers were taken down initially. No? It comes across as a little heavy handed, and does potentially alienate fans. I guess I am a case in point.
As a lawyer myself (ahem!) I accept that there is obviously a role for a 'websheriff' but - unless cowboy themed of course - children's birthday parties seem a little inappropriate and a waste of time perhaps best spent tracking down the pirates for example.
I also entirely take your point about artists' rights to control their work within the terms of their deals with their labels.
If a digital format is not covered then fair enough, although I would be surprised if major labels either do not have this covered or simply licence to Spotify without checking
Anyway, any actual inside track on the Dylan exodus?
P.S. Do you get to wear a stetson to work? My firm won't let me, although we are allowed not to wear ties on Fridays :-)
SIREN CALL
WEB SHERIFF
Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
Tel 44-(0)208-3238013
Fax 44-(0)208-3238080
websheriff@websheriff.com
www.websheriff.com
Hi Again Steven,
Thanks for your interesting and good-humoured reply ... .. please see our responses below (after the = in each instance):-
I am impressed by your powers of hearing it's almost like having access to the Batlight! = The Posse is well trained in the art of ‘cyber-tracking’ !!
I really do not see the point of asking the families of singing children to include artist or publishing credits. Who benefits? Is it considered as a form of advertising for the artist or label? All those cute Van Morrison covers were taken down initially. No? It comes across as a little heavy handed, and does potentially alienate fans. I guess I am a case in point. = Fair enough but, by the same token, the request is far from unreasonable and, if people want to take-a-stance by refusing to provide credits (for whatever reason), then that’s their free choice.
As a lawyer myself (ahem!) I accept that there is obviously a role for a 'websheriff' but - unless cowboy themed of course - children's birthday parties seem a little inappropriate and a waste of time perhaps best spent tracking down the pirates for example. = YouTube is just one facet of a very multi-faceted / multi-dimensional issue but, nevertheless, it makes sense for fan guidelines for any given artist to be clear and simple – and, as we respect fans (believe it or not), literally tens of thousands of YouTubers are personally (and routinely) messaged to explain these guidelines (and to help them avoid having ‘strikes’ against their accounts) ... .. something that most ‘rights enforcement’ agencies do not bother to take-the-time to do.
I also entirely take your point about artists' rights to control their work within the terms of their deals with their labels. = Indeed ... .. although far too often, labels fail to stop and check “ ... the terms of their deals ... “ – this happened when CDs were first introduced and it’s happening again now with digital.
If a digital format is not covered then fair enough, although I would be surprised if major labels either do not have this covered or simply licence to Spotify without checking = No Comment (other than that this will vary from case-to-case).
Anyway, any actual inside track on the Dylan exodus? – We can’t answer this Siren call – nice try though !!
P.S. Do you get to wear a stetson to work? My firm won't let me, although we are allowed not to wear ties on Fridays :-) = The outfit in the Esquire photo is regulation kit for the whole Posse. : )
Best,
WEB SHERIFF
No star sheriff
I love how WEB SHERIFF appears to be charged with protecting the great and good on the web, but hasn't bothered learning some rudimentary HTML in order to make his response at least legible.
I'm glad he's not running my town.
You are the politest 'enforcement officer'
I have ever encountered - and I've met a few - and that in itself is going some way towards winning me over to your point of view. Thank you for the response. I must be losing my cynical edge! (I'll be asking you for a job next ... although I will have to insist on a parking space for the horse).
Anyway, surely a more in-depth interview in the world's favourite magazine would be an interesting read? Perhaps Mr Forde could take the chair? (I'm thinking 'Nixon / Frost' ).
Fraser, what can be done? Any chance...?
Scared now.
There was a period on Popbitch when any mention of Victoria Beckham would be PRed within minutes. I guess this humble site has reached that stage.
this is tragic news
oh wait a minute
I can't get spotify !!!!
by the time i can get it, it will be shadow of its former self
same as it ever was.
World saved
Dylan on Spotify
http://open.spotify.com/album/1jizXxhkjyqe0osei0nD5z
A pretty ropey Bob Dylan 60's Live recording though.
Is Bobby coming back to Spotify?
Bob Dylan – Highway 61 Revisited: http://open.spotify.com/user/doublevisionary/playlist/0cYJWGgQr67S04OIqc...
With 7 bonus tracks, Bob fans!
How does it feeeeeeeeul? Er, quite good actually.