Rex Manning Day
“Spotify is not generating their own value besides creating the architecture for a streaming service (which by the way, they’re riding the coattails of Facebook for user accounts). They do not create (significant) content or value.”
According to the NY Times, in 1995, “when a CD is sold, 35 percent of the retail price goes to the store, 27 percent to the record company, 16 percent to the artist, 13 percent to the manufacturer, and 9 percent to the distributor.” (source: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/05/arts/pennies-that-add-up-to-16.98-why-cd-s-cost-so-much.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)
I might be mistaken, but I don’t recall anybody complaining that record stores were keeping too much money for themselves in the 90s. Furthermore, back in that pre-digital golden age of record sales, rightsholders were only keeping 43% of CD revenues. That’s less than half! On Spotify, rightsholders keep 70% of revenue.
You’re right, Spotify is not being generous in paying 70% to rightsholders. Nor, however, are they being somehow unreasonable in keeping 30%. That’s less than a physical store kept in the 90s, and it’s significantly less than the store and the distributor kept combined. If you were right and building Spotify wasn’t worth anything, then the record companies wouldn’t have agreed to this revenue scheme in the first place. They would have laughed those techies out of the room, slapped together their own service, and called it a day.
But they didn’t. They saw value in Spotify, and they agreed that that value was worth 30% of revenues. You might argue that record companies were forced to agree to this by the current environment, to which I reply: yes, duh, welcome to capitalism. When nobody is willing to buy music any more, whoever builds the biggest streaming service will be king.
Artists and labels are fighting for better deals and better venues to distribute their music. The labels weren’t forced at gunpoint into this agreement. They got the best deal they could in the market that existed. If you ask me, artists should spend more time overhauling the record labels and less time complaining about the current version of the record store. Fixing the labels will produce far, far more money for artists than getting Spotify to drop its rate ever will.
Preemptive criticisms of indier-than-thou Stereogum comments are the new indier-than-thou Stereogum comments.
I am not Rex Manning. I am Rex Manning DAY.
A fine distinction, but an important one.
Anyhoo, I am just always amused when dudes go off about how everyone’s so “overly-sensitive” about “political correctness” these days, and I like to point out such occasions so that others may join in my amusement. I am simply spreading joy, here.
Always nice to see 2 dudes sort out the finer details of what is and isn’t misogyny among themselves.
I mind that stuff being included in the first place.
Oh look, another Justin Timberlake song that is already too long at 5 minutes but then segues into an unnecessary vocal beatbox interlude followed by a dully repetitive coda that will be removed from the radio edit because nobody wants to listen to it.
If you want to put yourself in physical peril, just hang out with Ray Lewis and his friends after the Super Bowl, amirite?
First off, admitting that you are trolling defeats the entire purpose of trolling. You imply that you might respect her for trolling, but disrespect her for not admitting it. But by denying that she was trolling, she is simply continuing to troll. Thus, you should respect her for sticking to her guns.
But you don’t, because you have been trolled.
It’s also worth noting that there are two kinds of potential trolling here: 1, playing bad songs just to get a reaction; and 2, playing songs she likes that are nonstandard for the environment and are thus likely to garner a reaction. It’s Trolling v. 1 that she denied doing, and she was probably being honest in that denial because she seems to genuinely enjoy the songs she played. But she is probably guilty of Trolling v. 2, because she must have known that Boiler Room is typically a more-obscure-than-thou contest and therefore could probably have foreseen that playing T. Swift would get a negative reaction. But she played it anyway because who cares, get over yourselves, this is a stupid thing to be talking about.
The pre-recorded dance video was clearly planned well in advance, since those episodes of Fallon and Charlie Rose were both from last week.
But I don’t find it too hard to believe that a dance bit like this was originally planned for Daft Punk’s actual appearance. The context would have been different (perhaps he would dance through those scenes and then end up on stage with Daft Punk?), and it may have been shorter, but the bit could have been basically the same.
At that point, DP’s surprise absence just requires a couple last-minute guests (which Colbert rarely seems to have trouble with) to expand the bit into a longer/different context.
All of which doesn’t mean the whole thing definitely wasn’t contrived. I wouldn’t be too surprised either way. But I don’t think the prerecorded bits definitively prove that it was all contrived.
Your top 10 is the correct top 10.
I assume you’re talking about the Adam Duritz back piece. Which really is pretty spectacular.
My advice to people who find the National boring is to pay attention to the drums. The drums in almost every song are surprisingly intricate, and paying attention to them can help bring your attention to the rest of the things the song is doing.
Second piece of advice: find videos of them performing live. There’s an entire concert they had professionally filmed on YouTube, which is handy. They’re much more intense live.
All that said, I adore the National deeply, but I can’t begrudge people who find them boring. There are a whole bunch of indie bands who sound boring until something clicks in your head, and then suddenly they’re great. For the National, I think the drumming and the lyrics are often what makes them click, but it’s still just personal preference. Still, though, you should check out their live videos. They’re pretty great.
Sending Chris Brown to jail is probably the only thing Frank Ocean could do that would make the internet love him even more.
If Tegan & Sara never go on tour with Robyn in support of this album, it will be a travesty.
Haha, I don’t even know what this means.
But you do have a point; Pitchfork really is pretty much the only place online where Kanye and Pavement get so much love.
“Top Music Videos of 2012″ =/= “Most Popular YouTube Memes of 2012.”
Passion Pit – Gossamer
channel ORANGE deserves all the top spot love it’s getting, but that Passion Pit stayed on repeat for me for a long time.
On the Stereogum list of “Stereogum Lists From Least To Most Accurate,” this is a clear contender for #1.
False. Gum’s list is the accurate one.
Cruel Summer is just another alright mixtape. 808s, on the other hand, is actually a pretty fascinating album. In 20 years, Cruel Summer will be a footnote, but 808s will be an important part of any conversation about Kanye’s career (and not as “the bad album”).
Plus, 808s was way better than it gets credit for.
The fact that Pablo Honey was not placed in the top 3 proves that these lists are not designed exclusively as comment-rage bait.
However, the fact that Pablo Honey was not placed last proves that these lists are designed at least partly as comment-rage bait.
Probably because they’re in chronological order.
I have no real input re: the album rankings, but after watching this gif for about 3 solid minutes, I am confident in saying that that must be one of the most perfectly acted moments of all time.
Truth. This album is great. This song is great. This remix is great! Everything here is great.
Hell, the Hot Chip album is great, too. Seriously, everything involved in this remix is just Great.
Or maybe we need to accept the possibility of a record so excellent we don’t understand it yet.
No, but seriously, I think this article missed a nice opportunity to actually deconstruct what’s going on with this album. Instead, it’s basically just another review that says “I expected something grander, which this doesn’t deliver, so it’s kind of a disappointment.”
But why did you expect something grander? Furthermore, you admit that this album does sound differently, largely as a result of Jamie’s increased presence. Why is the production here a negative, then? And if this album does represent a restrained step forward from xx, which I think it does, is that not what we should have probably expected in the first place from a band whose entire aesthetic is defined by restraint?
And is this simply another case of an overhyped sophomore album, or is some aspect of our reaction specific to the xx? If a restrained step forward fits their aesthetic, and is nevertheless disappointing to the audience, does that say something about the band’s aesthetic? Does it say something about the audience?
There’s lots of interesting think-piece material about the critical reaction to this album, and it’s only really touched on here. Especially since I disagree that this album represents a particular disappointment, I would have been quite interested to see more analysis of that response, rather than a simple presentation of it.