What if you look at those 1 million song plays as advertising. She (or who ever Spotify's agreement is with) actually was paid to advertise her music to 1 million people worldwide.
The article mentions that she sold 4 million records and 20 million paid downloads. Would those numbers be nearly as high if countless people didn't get to try her out through streaming services first?
I believe it's necessary for me to find a cofounder that understands music, so that we can understand each other on a common level. Having a common understanding and goal is very important to the sucess of this idea(startup.)
The web has allowed so many unknown artists to reach fans they would have never been able to reach before, but it has also made them more vulnerable.
3 thing's are for sure: 'People' love music, love the internet, and love sharing. If we can successfully incorporate these 3 things to a music service, the DIGITAL AGE OF MUSIC will rise to it's full potential.
Free music is totally feasible, it only depends on the artist's approach to pursuing revnue (ie: freeing themselves from the lables.) Another thing is ad-supported alone is not feasible; neither is selling T-shirts...As long as people still want to store mp3 files on their music players, there's no reason why people won't want to pay for them. (Only if their demands are met)
To mikebo: "I don't see flocks of people giving up on mainstream music."
Music is music, mainstream music is no sweeter than indie music; they just have more marketing behind them. If the same marketing opportunities that are provided to mainstream music can be accessed by indie musicians, people will discover that Indie music is actually worth listening to.
From what I've observed, YC would be the most enjoyable place to be, in comparison to others; but it depends on the type of person you are, and what exactly you are looking for.
Copyright needs to be reconsidered, especially in this ever changing digital world we live where, copies can be made in the blink of an eye.
On the other hand, Record Labels are evil. They continue to rip off artists by claiming ownership of (the artist's work) through copyright, while giving the 'Content Creators' very little.
When I was young in the 70's artists either entered into a contract with the few major labels, or they remained unknown. The oligopoly owned the big studios, they had the major venues sewn up, and they had the radio stations and DJs. That's not my idea of willingly and freely.
I've never dealt with VCs from 'the inside', so it's certainly possible they're just as slimy. I suspect they aren't, because there's no distribution choke point as there is (was) in music, so they can't effectively enforce shenanigans. (They also don't lobby nearly as much, get weasel-words inserted into legislation on the sly, nor have they been found guilty of horiztonal collusion and anticompetitive practices. several times)
But even if they were, equivocation doesn't validate the correctness of either market. And the existence of contracts certainly don't somehow validate the way things work.
You're right, Artists still feel they have to sign "that" contract, in order to make it BIG. This is because of the misconception the music industry has put out there, knowing too well that artists will fall for it.
Good analogy on comparing record labels to VC firms, but I believe one is still more evil-er than the other.
"No one will ever be as excited about your [product, service, business] as you are."
This is so true. It is sometimes very hard for you to transfer the excitement of your idea or product onto others. That's why it's important to find co-founders that 'share' your vision, or you might risk loosing interest in own project yourself.
My start up idea doesn't have anything to do with the Record labels, but it does have everything to do with bringing artists and fans together, and allowing artists to control their own careers instead of signing their souls away to record labels.
I plan to differentiate myself from other music startups by NOT having anything to do with the 4 big labels or their music, but instead bring new talents to light!
That's an interesting proposition. Let me shed some light on the process from what I've learned over the past year.
- Artists are all about distribution. For artists to want to effectively "sign" with you, you have to present them an avenue for distribution that is better than the current channels- Youtube, MySpace, Facebook, direct sales (Record labels and ITunes), and current music startups like us.
- For fans to want to be interested, there has to be a value proposition for them. Sure they want to be connected with artists, but there has to be something in it for them. We thought that by having millions of free streaming music would do it, but even then its STILL hard to get fans to commit.
So I don't know what you have in mind, but you have to keep your mind on distribution. And just a word of caution--if it involves anything revolving around distributing music, be prepared for lawsuits. :)
I used to be a local music producer, and most of the people around me are musicians.
I don't just have a random idea, I really want to dedicate my life time to music, and solving this problem. I believe if artists and fans are brought together, we can reduce piracy, and promote creativity in the music industry.
There is a lot of people who think like you and lots of people are hard at work solving this problem. The space is quite crowded, but is still ripe for disruption. Good luck.
let's keep in mind that Spotify is still Europe-only for now, But...
If someone with as much world-wide fame as Lady Gaga could get this much for a million plays, then what about the less known artist(s)?
And who actually gets to see and keep this $167?...RIAA bosses, Label Bosses, or Lady Gaga
Great post BTW!