Thread by @AngryMetalGuy, @baconsbits_ aw, you stole my thesis about the album as a format [...]

@baconsbits_ aw, you stole my thesis about the album as a format being killed by the CD on your latest podcast!

But yeah, I disagree on a couple points. First, Ek's position seems just totally clear to me. His position is: the way artists want to make money off of his platform doesn't maximize his profits the way he wants them to. Thus, he thinks they should put out music in a way 1:n

that does. The problem is that Daniel Ek is worth 4 billion dollars. Now, of course, some of that worth is tied up in the estimation of the money he could make in the future blah blah blah, but the reality is that his money is being made off of highway robbery. And his 2:n

response makes perfect sense from his position. He controls the distributive medium and the payments. And, even worse, labels were _completely stupid_ when they signed their contracts for streaming. But let's say you cut Ek's estimated wealth in half and assume that a good 3:n

chunk of it is going for payouts. We're talking about something else entirely. Spotify does not _have_ to fuck artists. It chooses to fuck artists. And your friends who work at Spotify have a vested interest in Spotify's business model and justifying Ek's position. But it 4:n

is unbelievable to suggest that his position is anything other than pure self interest. He does not care about music and he does not care about independent musicians.

Problem 2: telling people that they should view Spotify as additional revenue is ridiculous since it's what 5:n

everyone uses to listen to music. Very few people buy music, so basically your advice to bands is: merch and touring (ruh roh). Now, I guess that's been the case for some time, but it shouldn't be the case as people are still listening to music. And, the point of 6:n

streaming was *supposed* to be that artists made money when you listened to their music. But since they don't, you might as well be torrenting and I'm not joking about that. If a band has millions of streams and makes no money, then all we're doing is paying to fund the 7:n

service and possibly the labels. But the bands are still completely fucked.

Ultimately, I don't think what Ek said is defensible and I disagree that bluntness is a Swedish cultural trait. Ek's an asshole who is thinking about his bottom line, not about musicians making 8:n

a living. Maybe he's right that with streaming we need to think about releases differently. I'm not convinced. Why should bands be bound to the bottom line of a corporate entity that doesn't pay out even if they become successful? Ultimately, independent music needs Bandcamp. 9:n

Spotify is the dominant model today, but like many profit-driven infrastructures, it's actually cannibalizing its most valuable resource: content and those who make it. It's the Wal-Mart problem. They force producers into prices so low that they can't afford to produce. 10:n

And it's on Ek to consider that if he actually gives a shit about musicians, he needs to re-adjust the way things are paid out, since clearly they're not wanting for profits.

Also, label execs should be ashamed of themselves for the deals they made. Idiots. 11:n

Finally, I think musicians and labels need to do a Spotify strike. If they pull content, Spotify's bottom line is fucked. It cannot exist without that content. Ek knows this, and if there's an kind of concerted effort to pressure the company, Spotify will fold and Google 12:n

and Apple will happily pick up the pieces.

ZE END! 13:13

TL;DR - Ek's a dick. Spotify is cannibalizing its own industry. Swedes are actually very mild-mannered, Ek's just a dickhead.

Latest Threads Unrolled: