Pink Floyd slams Pandora

[Naptown Rob]

Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason co-authored an editorial in USA Today, today.
Talk amongst yourselves....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/23/pink-floyd-royalties-pandora-column/2447445/

 

[spartanmanor]

Tough subject. I will say that they are also getting promotion by being played and promotion helps sales in other ways. I for one know that I have purchased may albums from listening to tracks that I have heard on Pandora.

 

[HVHiFI]

This is funny coming off last week when Pink Floyd released their entire collection to US Spotify.

 

[butch4695]

Tough subject. I will say that they are also getting promotion by being played and promotion helps sales in other ways. I for one know that I have purchased may albums from listening to tracks that I have heard on Pandora.

Agreed . I have found artists that I did not know existed until I heard them on Pandora .

 

[musichal]

Pandora became nothing more than an unused icon on my PC and TV screens once I subscribed to MOG. Have no idea whether they are involved also, and have no idea whether the article's alleged 85% cut is accurate. Doubt that PF's motives represent a completely altruistic concern for their fellow performers. For folks like them who've made it big, it's diificult for the average hard-working American to shed a lot of tears, and I feel much the same way about pro athletes. For the majority who struggle in the industry I tend to think, "Hey welcome to the workforce; feeling underappreciated, overworked and underpaid? Taken advantage of by your company/corporation? Far as I can tell, that's the norm. If you can't make it there then don't quit your day job; the main differences will be the pay can be as regular as you are, but don't expect any applause."

 

[Wigwam Jones]

The digital world (and what's left of AM/FM radio music play) has reached a point technologically where it should be entirely possible for commercial entities to license the music they wish to play online from a central location, payment to be determined by the copyright owner or their designated representative.

That means that bands wishing to trade the potential of increased exposure for up-front profits could choose a royalty rate of X, and bands wishing to gain revenue and not worried about expense could choose a royalty rate of Y. Those who wish to stream or broadcast music could determine for themselves what their budget is and what that means they play and do not play.

Bands that charge 'too much' for their royalties would soon find themselves without significant 'airtime' and might choose to rethink their prices; while on the other hand, bands whose music has become popular and could support more royalties would be able to raise their prices in accordance with their own popularity. Of course, everyone would be free to decide what to charge for their own royalties regardless of consequence. Those bands that seek revenue above all might quickly find that no one plays their music; those that essentially give their music away might find it a quick road to popularity, but not to earning a living.

Water seeks its own level. Given the technology we have available today, there is no reason I can see why rates should be set across the board. At one time it was necessary; now I do not see that as being the case. We can have a form of 'free enterprise' for music distribution and sales now. Prices will find their own appropriate levels.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[jsisk]

If Pandora can't make a profit and pay the artists fair compensation, then they have the wrong business model.

 

[Montycat]

Agreed . I have found artists that I did not know existed until I heard them on Pandora .

Who's Pink Floyd?

 

[cubdog]

What trick is Pandora trying to pull? The letter in question isn't a legal contract. They make the letter out to be deceitful and while I suppose it could be where is the evidence. I'm all for the artist getting as much as possible but something seems missing in this picture.

cubdog

 

[Wigwam Jones]

If Pandora can't make a profit and pay the artists fair compensation, then they have the wrong business model.

'Fair' is a relative term.

EDIT:

In fact, to expand upon that, Pink Floyd in their Op/Ed piece compare the cost of paying royalties to the cost of buying groceries. But that is a false analogy. Because, you see, if I am a grocery store, my goal is to pay the lowest prices for the goods I sell, and to sell them for the highest prices I can. The market controls what I can sell for, that's free enterprise for you. But I am free to attempt to get lower prices from my suppliers, and if there is sufficient competition, then they may be forced to reduce their prices to me (just as the market forces me to lower my prices for retail customers if there is sufficient competition).

However the royalty rates are not something one can go shopping for; they're fixed.

So it's just not a valid comparison.

 

[89grand]

Almost everybody does something for a living, I'm not sure who decided if you make music or movies, it's worth many times over what most professions make per year. They can't do what I do any more than I can do what they do.

I've never heard of a main stream band that lives pay check to pay check like most of us do. I wish I received royalty checks every time someone used a product that contained a circuit board I built.

 

[iwilson]

well, we know one thing roger and david can agree on

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Almost everybody does something for a living, I'm not sure who decided if you make music or movies, it's worth many times over what most professions make per year. They can't do what I do any more than I can do what they do.

I've never heard of a main stream band that lives pay check to pay check like most of us do. I wish I received royalty checks every time someone used a product that contained a circuit board I built.

Free enterprise. They can get whatever people will pay them for most things.

In that way, the market decides what they can get paid for their work. People are free not to buy their albums, not to purchase concert tickets. If they charge too much for those things, people may indeed take a pass; thus the market speaks.

On the other hand, royalties are fixed prices which are not related to the free market. This is something I feel could be fixed with our current level of technology, something which was not possible in the past.

As to how much they make, I'm sure they make whatever they can. I sure do. And I'd hate someone telling me that I make too much money according to them.

The fact that 'mainstream' bands don't live paycheck to paycheck has zero to do with it.

 

[89grand]

I agree that they can get paid what the market is willing to pay, but then they whine when the market wants to pay less than they think they should get paid. In other words, they try to put their own accessed value to their work, and nothing works like that, otherwise I'd be rich too.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I agree that they can get paid what the market is willing to pay, but then they wine when the market wants to pay less than they think they should get paid. In other words, they try to put their own accessed value to their work, and nothing works like that, otherwise I'd be rich too.

That is a valid point, in the sense that they want to hide behind what is essentially a non-free enterprise price-fixing scheme.

They do seem to want it both ways. However, that's part of the game as well.

 

[Blue Shadow]

Yes, Nick needs more royalty money. His ~40 car collection has one that is reported to be worth $37 Million. And I helped pay for that with the Pink Floyd music I have purchased. How about a ride in that ride, Nick?

 

[hellhound94]

Who's Pink Floyd?

This is the best post I've seen all day...thanks!

 

[Naptown Rob]

"they want to hide behind what is essentially a non-free enterprise price-fixing scheme."

But what about the idea that, left to their own devices, the "market" would pay...
Nothing.
Which is quite true.
So then, what?

 

[BruceRPA]

Tough subject. I will say that they are also getting promotion by being played and promotion helps sales in other ways. I for one know that I have purchased may albums from listening to tracks that I have heard on Pandora.

+ 1 more!

Actually, I listen to Pandora as much to enjoy the music as I do to discover new artists or rediscover old artists. For example, I discovered one of my favorite groups on Pandora, Fourplay, and have since purchased every CD that I can get my hands on.

 

[matteos]

Am I the only person who agrees with Pink Floyd here? I don't think they're arguing because they are greedy, they're arguing for the sake of struggling musicians (they say 90% of them get less than $5000 from online revenue from services like Pandora) I don't listen to Pandora, I don't like the ads and I don't like not controlling exactly the song I want to listen to. My wife listens to it... She hasn't bought a cd in years. What's the point for her? She just puts on Pandora.