Spotify Retaliating Against Apple Music Exclusive Artists, Execs Say… | DMN

Nope… nothing to see here…

The Times dropped the bombshell after digging into the Frank Ocean situation, one that is actively causing the music industry to reinvestigate their practices around exclusives.  “Executives at two major record labels said that in recent weeks Spotify, which has resisted exclusives, had told them that it had instituted a policy that music that had benefited from such deals on other services would not receive the same level of promotion once it arrived on Spotify,” Sisario wrote.  “Such music may not be as prominently featured or included in as many playlists, said these executives…”


Spotify might not suppress search, but that doesn’t mean artists with exclusives get treated equally | Tech Crunch


However, while Spotify has been clear about rejecting one part of the argument against the company, there is another piece of the story that remains unaddressed. Hidden in the details, the accusations are really twofold, including both the notion that

* Spotify directly suppresses tracks from artists that have previously signed exclusives with Apple Music or Tidal in search results.
* And, Spotify indirectly targets artists who have signed exclusives with Apple Music and Tidal but promoting music differently in playlists and banner ads.


Spotify Is Burying Musicians for Their Apple Deals | Bloomberg

New boss, worse than the old boss…

Spotify has been retaliating against musicians who introduce new material exclusively on rival Apple Music by making their songs harder to find, according to people familiar with the strategy. Artists who have given Apple exclusive access to new music have been told they won’t be able to get their tracks on featured playlists once the songs become available on Spotify, said the people, who declined to be identified discussing the steps. Those artists have also found their songs buried in the search rankings of Spotify, the world’s largest music-streaming service, the people said. Spotify said it doesn’t alter search rankings.


Pandora’s New Deal: Different Pay, Different Play | NPR

The new payola?

Performers get paid a small royalty each time one of their songs is played on Internet radio, at a rate set by a Royalty Court at the Library of Congress. But Internet radio and labels can strike individual deals, as Pandora did with Merlin. The Internet service will recommend Merlin artists over those not affiliated with the consortium in exchange for paying Merlin’s musicians a lower royalty rate.

Merlin artists get more spins, and Pandora winds up paying less in royalties than it would if were giving those same spins to non-Merlin artists. Plus, consortium labels will get to suggest favorite tracks.


Internet Pay To Play: Payola’s Revenge – Guest Post by Robert Rial of Bakelite78

Guest Post by Robert Rial of the band (Posted by permission, copyright in the author.)

I just read David Lowery’s Letter to Emily White, got righteously indignant and wanted to rant, so…

My Seattle band Bakelite 78 is not mainstream.  Our genre, which I’ll just call Gothic-Cabaret-Infused-Jazz/Americana, is a bit esoteric, perhaps. We are unsigned, we have no agent or manager, are trying the D.I.Y. thing, have paid for three albums ourselves out of pocket, pooling band income, and I have put in my personal money on occasions.

Our recent album “What The Moon Has Done” had received some good reviews locally, airplay on KCBS, and we were keen on trying to get some exposure with new markets.  So we decided to pay an inordinately large sum (almost enough to record the next album) for an online [REDACTED COMPANY] publicity campaign for the 12 weeks surrounding the release and CD Release Party, to attempt to get the attention of the Inter-Web-Blogosphere.

It was a huge expense and we were hoping for massive exposure and to reap a bunch of downloads/CD Baby sales.  We did get play on some internet radio stations, and interviewed on a couple podcasts.  But the more I understood what was going on, the more pissed off I was getting.  On a lot of the sites, I had to forego my rights as a songwriter, composer, and musician, and allow the internet radio station or podcast in question to play my music and not compensate my BMI blanket publishing entity for each song played.  Apparently the rules have changed and it is supposedly in my best interest to bend over and give my shit away if I ever want anyone to like it enough to buy it.  But the problem is they don’t buy it.  So we were on these blogs/webcasts/internet radio stations.  How many people actually listened?  How effective was an online publicity approach?

After our well attended CD Release Party at Columbia City Theater, and the [REDACTED COMPANY] campaign concluded, we sat back and waited for the online sales.  And after all the time and money we spent on studio time, mixing/mastering, design/layout, replication, and [REDACTED COMPANY] publicity, sales did not allow even a small recoupment of our investment.  I know we don’t suck that bad.

The model is designed to take all the money from musicians while giving them almost nothing back.

For instance, in addition to the [REDACTED COMPANY] campaign, we had been paying online elsewhere on sites like Sonicbids and Reverb Nation, to submit our electronic press kit to potential venues and festivals (to no avail), and to place Facebook advertisements to get more “Likes”.  None of this crap had enough effect.  And I found myself more broke, not on tour, sitting in front of this macbook more and more, instead of playing my tenor banjo, or listening to some old Emmett Miller 78 r.p.m. record, or going out to a show, or being a member of the real community, the real world, the real scene.  My creativity and focus wasted, burning my retinas, to try to do what?

Blow up the internet.  Let’s go back to the old form of PAYOLA.

[EDITORS NOTE: You can listen 90 seconds of all of the songs, and buy the album here at iTunes.]