Indie Labels Get Spotify Wrong

Controversy in rock nyc. Yesterday, you read our Alyson Camus on the sins of spotify – for dummies: they under pay indies.

Essentially, they pay one cent per two streams. As oppossed to… nothing.

But that isn't really acccurate.

Indies don't really really exists, they hve distribution deals with the majors and when UMUS, Sony et al cut off a portion of Spotify as well as tens of millions of bucksm they sold their own indie label partners along with the.

Essentially, the majors added the indies as an add to and the indies, who have contracts with the majors, have no options. But why would they need one? It is found money.

Alyson thinks that free streaming will kill indies. Maybe it will (it's not my problem but whatever) but maybe it will give indie a level playing field and at the very least? It will move concert tix. She sees (and so do I, it is hard for me to see it different), Spotify as ITunes but it isn't that, really. It is radio that you program and so since nothing is being sold, the artists  should be paid similar to radio. And they really should. If Shit Robot gets streamed a milion times, de serves not just more money but a bigger cut. But if he is being stream 11,00 times? That's fucking nothing. what the hell… he doesn't DESERVE $50 LET ALONE $40/ If I stream a a song, me myself, 129 times, that means, the owner of the song is getting paid $1.29. The COST OF THE FUCKING SONG. What's the whinging about?

If Alyson's fear is that indie bands won't be recorded any more, it is a seriously misplaced concern. Now more than ever anybody can be heard: with protools in one hand, and FB on the other, everyone is a pro. And while the complaint is the sae as any form of socialism, so what? What do I care? It isn't a problem with Spotify or with pop but with distribution. What can you do when it is that easy to share  music?

Spotify isn't killing .indie, it is creating it.