Jump to content

Led Zeppelin catalog to be on Spotify


Recommended Posts

It is an online on demand music streaming service. For a monthly fee, users can listen to any of the songs within Spotify's catalog.

https://www.spotify.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify

thank you. LD :)

Several videos are already on you tube. A friend called me about this. For those who like this it's great,but I still like vinyl and as long as I have albums and a good turntable and sound system that is my choice of how I listen to music. :peace:

http://youtu.be/8-bqtSsB-2o

Debs, i agree .

why can't people just buy the records/cds?

the joy i had of sitting on my bedroom floor looking at the album covers over and over while playing the vinyls ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the albums are up now, but as expected the expanded version of Coda hasn't been included, so Baby Come On Home, Hey Hey What Can I Do, White Summer/Black Mountainside (BBC session) as well as Moby Dick/Bonzo's Montreaux (Boxed Set 1) are missing, not to mention the edited single version of Whole Lotta Love. Meanwhile, on the 'Complete Studio Albums' listing, In The Light for some reason has an errant '- .' at the end of the song title. But all this is just nit picking!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, since the release on Spotify Led Zeppelin went up to #10 from #67 last week on the Last.fm Top Artists Charts. They publish new weekly charts each Monday which take into account all new scrobbles on their site till Sunday, 12:00 GMT noon. So the latest Led Zeppelin albums on Spotify were only out for a few hours on that day, and they might climb up even higher in the new charts after a full week of scrobbling. See the Last.fm artist page of Led Zeppelin with bio, listening trend, shoutbox and more, also their FAQs how the site works, what scrobbling means etc.

Edited by Bluezz Bastardzz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I just hope this might introduce Led Zeppelin's vast and varied catalog to those who might not know them.

I am always especially excited to hear of people younger than me digging on the best band ever! :)

This is exactly how I felt when I heard the news about their music finally coming to Spotify. As someone who used Spotify already, it was great news to hear. Another way for me to listen to Zeppelin whenever I want will always make me happy. But, I'm also glad because I hold out hope that new people will hear, appreciate, and come to love Led Zeppelin as much as all of us on here do. Zeppelin's music is a timeless gift that'll keep on giving.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

So I was browsing around and stumbled upon a 12-hour, 160-Coachella-artist Spotify playlist. Then I remembered there was some ongoing controversy regarding payouts to artists, specifically, that indie artists are getting the short end of the royalty stick. Add to that the fact that Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, and Thom Yorke have pulled catalogues/albums from Spotify, (with Dave Stewart arguing against Yorke's decision to do so) and here's a controversy whose many facets are tricky to grasp fully.

Not to derail the thread, and while I loathe the quality of the music in this medium, if more young people get introduced to Zep somehow this way, all the better. You could argue that lesser known artists also get this ancillary benefit, that Spotify gives them exposure you can't quantify, and that's reasonable to an extent, I suppose, but I want to focus specifically on whether or not the revenue stream breakdown is inherently fair for artists.

As a segue to the topic:

Spotify Gets the Led Out

“Streaming suits [back] catalog. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists’ work,” Yorke complained on Twitter (TWTR) at the time, which may be why Radiohead’s music is still on there. And why Led Zeppelin has finally allowed fans to get the led out for free.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-11/spotify-gets-the-led-out

On the one hand, grumblings that the royalties are paltry for many indie artists seem to be rising. It seems that an artist has to have their music streamed 1,000,000 times to earn around $1500 (a payout per stream of between US$0.006 and US$0.0084). For famous musicians and bands, that's not a problem, but you could see that being an issue for up-and-comers or those in a niche genre. And how does that work exactly? Is this now in perpetuity or fluid? http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1373047/streaming-site-spotify-reveals-how-much-artists-earn-each-song

This article below basically skewers Spotify's model. What shocked me was that I assumed "per stream" meant per stream of song, not an entire album! That seems highly suspect in terms of fair compensation.

http://www.thekillingmoon.com/2014/11/spotify-is-terrific-fraud.html

On the other hand, Spotify counters with the fact that when they get more subscribers (and it's growing), artists will get more money. But how does that work exactly if hypothetically the number of streams for an artist happens to drop? There's no guarantee that more people automatically means more streams for the existing artists as new ones gain attention (though I guess that new subscribers come from across the board in terms of musical interest...?) or what am I missing?

Spotify also says that it gave out royalties in the hundreds of millions and is not responsible for the royalty deals artists have with their labels. Sounds a bit like passing the buck here.... Plus someone at work mentioned that Spotify actually makes it's money from advertising, not from the service itself, but how does that (if at all) trickle down to the artist?

https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/spotify-responds-criticism-thom-yorke-nigel-godrich-153544959-rolling-stone.html

Here is a slightly older article from 2011, but this part was interesting (as is the rest of it for some insights into the details of the industry):

Though all deals with Spotify are covered by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), it is well known in music industry circles that Universal was able to secure a minimum streaming rate for the ad-funded version of the site – something, it is understood, not even the other majors have been able to accomplish.

You can't blame Universal for securing the best deal possible. After all, it has a lot of leverage, being the world's biggest music group. Spotify would be a lot less successful without Universal artists such as Lady Gaga, Eminem and Black Eyed Peas.

I do, however, have an issue with a track by Lady Gaga earning more money for 100,000 streams than, for example, one by Adele or the xx, just because Gaga is signed to a major label.

After all, when their songs are played on the radio in the UK, they receive the same royalty rate. This is because radio royalty rates are negotiated by PPL, which collects performance royalties for all the labels and performers (including musicians featured on the recordings), in the same way PRS for Music collects – and negotiates rates – on behalf of songwriters and their publishers.

Traditionally, record labels only collect and distribute the revenue from record sales (so-called "mechanicals") and synchs (advertising and use in games, for example), while PPL collects radio and live (so-called "performance rights"). So why wouldn't PPL negotiate the Spotify rates for all the labels? Because the bigger labels don't want them to. Their argument is that on-demand streaming is not the same as radio.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2011/feb/01/spotify-royalties-independents

Some are even blaming us, the non-buyers, for the dire state of compensation to the artists that we love but not enough to buy their albums or they blame labels:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120622/16193319442/myth-dispensing-whole-spotify-barely-pays-artists-story-is-bunk.shtml

http://workinmansblues.com/2013/12/spotify-announces-royalty-formula-youre-one-keeping-low/

The other point is that artists don't have a breakdown of their own numbers, a breakdown that Spotify and other digital music services have. Here are some interesting insights from an independent musician, Zoe Keating, about the issue:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/19/zoe-keating-spotify-streaming-royalties

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/09/zoe-keating-on-spotify-fairness-to-indie-artists-musics-niche-economy.html

The convenience is there from a music fan's perspective, although the sound quality is compromised. I don't know as well to what extent this digital service lowers the sales of physical copies (CD's, vinyl, boxed sets :D). Supposedly it has decreased the downloading of torrents, although I find that hard to believe. Can't you just download from Spotify or is it solely streaming? If the former, there's no way that a better quality (lossless) free dl doesn't trump a paid-for mp3. I've only just begun looking into it, but something doesn't seem right; from the point of view of a musician, I'm not convinced that the Spotify model is equitable and beneficial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...