I wonder if artists who withdraw their music from services like this because they don't make "enough money" from them, realize they are getting paid again and again for me listening to albums I've already bought.
You may not be getting paid in buckets and buckets of cash, but what you're getting is really just a freebie. You cannot complain about getting free money.
If enough artists do this, services like Spotify will not offer me enough convenience, and the other option (simply mirroring my 100GB music collection to my work PC) will then be good enough that no artists stands to earn free money for albums I've already paid for.
As far as Thom Yorke's argument goes: That artists are severely underpaid in the streaming-world, I'm not going to debate that or even oppose that. He probably knows better than me.
But we've already established that this was a problem with the album-model as well. You have record companies taking $10 per album and the artist getting paid $1. With a $100,000 "credit" for studio-engineers to repay.
It seems the only truth and rule in the music-industry is that the artist always gets screwed.
> I wonder if artists who withdraw their music from services like this because they don't make "enough money" from them, realize they are getting paid again and again for me listening to albums I've already bought
I wonder how common that is? At least 90% of the things I listen to on Spotify are things that I have not bought on vinyl, CD, or any non-streaming online format.
I think I'm about 70:30 stuff I already own to new stuff. Possibly even 80:20.
This is probably because I have a huge music collection already, and I'm in my 30s and don't like you kids and your darned modern music so much any more. Music was so much better in my day, mumble mumble, get off my lawn etc etc.
You may not be getting paid in buckets and buckets of cash, but what you're getting is really just a freebie. You cannot complain about getting free money.
If enough artists do this, services like Spotify will not offer me enough convenience, and the other option (simply mirroring my 100GB music collection to my work PC) will then be good enough that no artists stands to earn free money for albums I've already paid for.
As far as Thom Yorke's argument goes: That artists are severely underpaid in the streaming-world, I'm not going to debate that or even oppose that. He probably knows better than me.
But we've already established that this was a problem with the album-model as well. You have record companies taking $10 per album and the artist getting paid $1. With a $100,000 "credit" for studio-engineers to repay.
It seems the only truth and rule in the music-industry is that the artist always gets screwed.