In the ongoing Spotify debate there are numerous sides to
the story and an obvious elephant in the room. If you agree with my theory that the only reason you’d stop streaming your music is that you think it’s
detrimental to your sales then the ‘elephant’ in this instance is probably
quality and popularity.
If I’m being charitable perhaps Thom & Nigel’s project
is not suited to streaming as it’s not music that benefits from casual or
background listening, it requires effort, the repeated listens that few of us
(outside the rabid fans) have time for. It is also – essentially – a solo
project and these are never as successful as the artist’s main activity, the
stuff they became famous for.
Radiohead is not just a band, it is popular and successful
enough to be known as a brand – people have faith in it and the material
released in its name. The same is not valid for any project undertaken by the
individual members of that band. This is as true for Thom Yorke as it is for
Mick Jagger, neither will ever sell as much solo as they will within their
known quantity.
Successful artists are indulged such projects and have
companies who are willing to work with them on these things. You’ve sold
millions of records and tickets therefore you are allowed to do your
avant-garde sideshow, that doesn’t mean all your existing fans are going to buy
into it though. Given a reality check most artists would understand this,
unfortunately by flying in the face of accepted industry beliefs on Spotify
Thom & Nigel seem to be highlighting the fact that no-one’s buying the
Atoms For Peace album. Or that might be just how I see it.
There’s a great overview with contrasting arguments here
and I could easily fill this blog with the commentary of others like this.
Indeed you could spend all day reading such pieces without ever changing your
opinion or only becoming more confused.
I’ve made the point before that some artists are still
making money from recorded sales by producing music that people want to buy. If
your music is niche or your album is an art project then you probably have to
accept that fewer people are going to buy it – fewer still without hearing it.
If it’s that far from the mainstream (and you’re not streaming) then their
opportunities to hear it will be somewhat restricted.
Nigel & Thom seemed to have made the stand that the only
way to hear their new music is to buy it. This seems to be very retrograde for
someone who once pursued a ‘pay what you can’ policy. As producer Stephen Street
Going back to the big grey thing in the restricted space, it
could be argued that the collapse of the old record company system has resulted
in an absence of A&R. The A&R person
was the conduit between artist and label, partly there to serve the interests
of both but - as a result of how they were paid – likely to be most interested in
finding a song or songs that would be commercially viable. There’s an argument
for creative freedom and I’d be the first to back that up but there has to be a
balance, compromise – some give and take to ensure that people want to take.
We may be in a guitar-band vacuum at present with pop and
RnB reigning majestic, things may turn around in that cyclical nature of the
music business but it’s gone on for some time now and one would have to
conclude that emerging rock artists are clearly not making the music that
people want – or those that are are finding it difficult to get heard, signed
or bought. Hearing a hit, wherever or however, might kick-start that process.
Comments