One thing you can be sure of almost every week is that there’ll be another article about music streaming sites. They’ll either speak in favour or against but will inevitably have no conclusion about the future direction of the music industry. Depressing isn’t it?
Saturday’s article by the masters of materialism Sky is probably the worst example of the aforesaid addiction to pointing out the problem but reaching the inevitable impasse in the final paragraph.
“With major labels joining the revolution rather than fighting it, there’s little doubt that the traditional roles of manufacturing, distribution and retail will continue to be debated and redefined.”
Thanks for that definitive answer of how to sit on the fence, Sky. It made me feel so much better that i’d spent 5 minutes of my valuable time reading such a pointless article.
Worse, still – they’re running with the oft repeated company line from Spotify (admittedly clever to the layman) that it is “paying back $1 billion dollars to the music industry this year”. What this clever spin fails to tell you is that the majority of this money goes in licensing fees to the major labels most of whom are in turn shareholders in spotify. Incestuous or what? The upshot of this is that they can say they are giving back money to the industry (true) but it sure as hell ain’t reaching the pockets of the artists (as confirmed by all the horror stories spread around the net).
So come on Journo’s, at least do some research before you print this stuff. I’m guessing most people are looking for answers to the problem, not lazy journalistic piggybacking of stories.
I should point out that some artists like Spotify e.g Keane. Somehow appropriate I feel.
By Ken Foster