Thom Yorke removes music from Spotify over business practices

While Spotify is considered to have changed the market for streaming music, Radiohead lead singer Thom York is challenging the company’s policies by removing some of his own music.

Yorke removed his solo album "The Eraser" as well music by his band Atoms for Peace under claims that Spotify fails to pay artists. In tweets posted last night, Yorke claims to be "standing up for fellow musicians" by removing the aforementioned albums. from Spotify.

Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich, best known for his work on the band's album "OK Computer," is currently posting on Twitter with a number of comments about how corrupt streaming media may be. He claims artists are told they will miss vital exposure without Spotify and similar services.

There are plenty of similar services, too. Spotify is only the tip of the iceberg, with services such as Rdio, Pandora, Microsoft’s Xbox Music and iTunes Radio also providing music streams.

At the time of writing all Radiohead albums remain on Spotify, but Thom Yorke’s discography is not available. While we’re not musicians here, the tweets posted seem to paint a very negative picture of Spotify and its method of operation.

Source: BBC

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Aviary Photo Editor app makes Windows Phone 8 debut

Next Story

Windows 8.1 getting 'extra large' DPI scaling improvements for PC displays

32 Comments

View more comments

Yep, I think I heard a piece on NPR a few months back about the various streaming companies not paying much to artists. There was a small label artist claiming that even though her songs had thousands of listens she would get a check with 1 or 2 cents on it from spotify, whereas on itunes she would get a fraction of the downloads, but checks with actual dollar amounts on them. In all she felt she was better off selling her music through traditional CDs, but there was no exposure and marketing available to her there.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/there...action-of-a-cent-on-spotify

Not sure how it's Spotify's fault if an independent artist or label accepts unfavorable terms. Be that as it may, anecdote's from individuals don't paint a full picture, especially when most of the people they contacted for that story wouldn't disclose numbers.

Cheatyface said,
Not sure how it's Spotify's fault if an independent artist or label accepts unfavorable terms. Be that as it may, anecdote's from individuals don't paint a full picture, especially when most of the people they contacted for that story wouldn't disclose numbers.

Would you disclose numbers if those numbers amounted more to the ****s you care about your artists than it does to how much you pay them? Exactly who would your artists be mad at then?

As evidenced by Thom Yorke up there, he clearly has a major say in how much hes getting paid doesn't he?

NastySasquatch said,

Would you disclose numbers if those numbers amounted more to the ****s you care about your artists than it does to how much you pay them? Exactly who would your artists be mad at then?

As evidenced by Thom Yorke up there, he clearly has a major say in how much hes getting paid doesn't he?

He, or his agent, accepted unfavorable terms and he's now throwing a tantrum and taking his toys home. Sounds like a mature and adult way of dealing with things to me. /s

I'm not sure I believe either side. Spotify is trying to grow through razor thin or negative margins (operating at a loss) so as to become THE dominate force in the music industry and beat Apple. They're entirely driven by revenue goals, not profit goals and thus if they achieve their stated growth/goals the only way they could survive is by being the dominate force and forcing content producers to play under their rules. I wouldn't be surprised if they're waiting for better IPO markets so they can capitalized on their revenue and hope people ignore their staggering losses and simply become to big to fail and everyone has to bow down to their "Way of business"..

and i'm not sure I buy how Mr Yorke believes he should be compensated since there are no facts thereof I can make an educated decision on.

I seriously doubt Radiohead is anyone's favorite band. For as much as this Thom guy (great name by the way) claims they don't use drugs, I am sure their supply is running low and they need more $$$. I am sure that will spike sales by taking away the music from legal means. See, there is a copy of every song they ever did on Pirate Bay for $0.00. He deserves all the royalty he gets from that excruciating work.

What ****es me off the most is that I pay for a Spotify Premium subscription in good faith, thinking it's a good deal for everyone - I get access to a large library of music, but I use it on terms that have been agreed with labels, bands, etc. It's slightly restrictive, but it seems a good compromise.

Coldplay pulled a similar stunt when Mylo Xyloto came out - wasn't available on Spotify for a good month or so at least. What the hell gives? You ARE hurting fans - if you didn't like the deal that Spotify made, then you shouldn't have signed up to put your music on there. And if your label signed the deal for you, take your talent to another goddamn label.

I agree. Also, if the music isn't on Spotify, I think a lot of people will just download the music illegally.

Ace said,
I agree. Also, if the music isn't on Spotify, I think a lot of people will just download the music illegally.

I've done that in the past. I've also downloaded a bands album because there was a month long delay between the US release and the UK release. Region locking on a digital service is completely retarded, especially when I want to pay for it.

Majesticmerc said,

I've done that in the past. I've also downloaded a bands album because there was a month long delay between the US release and the UK release. Region locking on a digital service is completely retarded, especially when I want to pay for it.

What consumers want is quite obvious. But they continue to act as if they just don't know how to satisfy us and continue to impose ridiculous restrictions. Surely, eventually, it will just become too cost prohibitive to keep such a tight grip on things and they'll have to relent eventually.

Stuff like Netflix and Spotify is generally a major step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. Just the usual greed of business and individuals that screw it up (e.g. HBO not wanting to offer any of their content on Netflix... seriously, get with the programme).

The coolest thing about these services, (Pandora, Spotify, Xbox Music), is that you can listen to any album and any song (with rare exception), as much as you want for free, or for the price of one album a month.

I pay for the premium subscription for a few reasons:

First and foremost, the library offered by Spotify is far more than I could ever store myself, and has far more bands than I was ever aware of.

I can have my music wherever I am. My playlists are all automatically synced between my work PC, my home PCs, my phone and my tablet (when I had one). And I get access to my FULL library (excluding tracks I imported from other sources that aren't available on Spotify), rather than just the subset I carry with me.

The Radio feature suggests artists that I haven't heard of, based on the artists I have listened to, and lets me play their full catalogue (again, if available).

I guess at the end of the day it depends what you're typical listening habits are. If you listen to the same few artists day in/day out, you get better value for money buying MP3s of the albums you want to listen to. I might listen to upwards of a 50 albums a year though. Using the an average Amazon MP3 cost of £6 per album, it'd cost me £300 per year to buy all those albums, whereas with Spotify I pay just £119.

Of course the obvious downside of Spotify is that if I stop paying, I don't have any music anymore, and that is bad, but when I think about it, I rarely listen to an album after a few months anyway, so it's not really any different to me.

Obviously YMMV.

I use Deezer on my phone while in my car, hook it up to the bluetooth and can stream pretty much anything I want. I will admit I used to download a lot of MP3's illegally, but I just don't bother now I use that app and it does me fine. As far as I'm aware the artists are getting 'something' from my usage of it.

Artists can remove their stuff from Spotify as much as they like, it just means they'll get none of my money instead of a miniscule amount...I'm ok with that

Meh, I couldn't care less about Spotify. I've got a 4 month free subscription that I use at work (iPhone storage sucks), but I won't ever pay for it. I just buy all of my albums direct from the artist or their label because music is dirt cheap. Before anyone says it, I earn minimum wage, but I still find funds to buy music rather than pirate it or pay for services like Spotify.

I saw someone mention that the Spotify sub. equates to about an album per month - but I think that's only cost-effective depending on your listening habits. I'm the type of person that will get a new album or two and just have them on rotation for a month or so whilst dipping back into the rest of my music. Due to this and album release dates, I can go a couple of months without buying an album, so really I'd probably end up spending more with Spotify Premium.

“your small meaningless rebellion is only hurting your fans ... a drop in the bucket really”
That quote sounds like something GLADoS would say in such a situation...

Commenting is disabled on this article.