Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Hey Spotify users. A whole buch of people just showed up in my friend feed that I don't know. Are they now showing people who have subscribed to a playlist that you have?
If you happen to DL a record before the date of release and happen to listen to it on Spotify, does it show up in the news feed? I honestly have no clue.
On Facebook, that is.
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2013 20:57:43 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jul 15, 2013 12:14:11 GMT -5
Thom Yorke blasts Spotify on Twitter as he pulls his music
Radiohead star says 'new artists get paid Quack all' on streaming service, as producer Nigel Godrich adds 'it's bad for new music'
Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify, complaining that "new artists get paid Quack all with this model".
Yorke and producer Nigel Godrich took to Twitter to express their annoyance at the business model for new artists, and explain their reasoning.
"The numbers don't even add up for Spotify yet. But it's not about that. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable," Godrich, whose production credits include albums for Radiohead and Paul McCartney, tweeted. "Meanwhile small labels and new artists can't even keep their lights on. It's just not right."
He continued: "Streaming suits [back] catalogue. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists' work. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. [Streaming services] have no power without new music."
Spotify offers a limited free streaming service, and an unlimited service at tiers of £5 and £10 a month. But some artists have complained that it is less effective for them to make music available there than to sells CDs and digital downloads because the per-stream payments are comparatively tiny.
The industry average offers slightly less than 0.4p a stream – meaning that 1m streams of a song would generate about £3,800. Most songs receive far fewer streams.
In a statement, Spotify said: "Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music. We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love.
"Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid $500m (£332m) to rights holders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach $1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music.
"We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."
A Spotify spokesperson also pointed out that Yorke's music is still available for streaming on the Google-owned YouTube video service – whose chief executive Eric Schmidt said last week about film piracy that "Our position is that somebody's making money on this pirated content and it should be possible to identify those people and bring them to justice."
The row highlights the collision between new models of listening to music created by streaming as the industry tries to find methods of dissuading fans from using illicit services to download songs for free without repaying artists.
Godrich insisted that the point was not about gaining more money for himself or Yorke, whose work with Radiohead sold millions of CDs in the past two decades. "The music industry is being taken over by the back door. And if we don't try and make it fair for new music producers and artists, then the art will suffer. Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."
Yorke pitched in to the debate. "Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly be rolling in it. Simples," he tweeted, and added as a riposte to critics that the suggestion his move was pointless missed its purpose: "'Your small meaningless rebellion is only hurting your fans ... a drop in the bucket really.' No, we're standing up for our fellow musicians."
Spotify has been having notable success getting some established bands to make their music available on its service: Daft Punk's Get Lucky rapidly became one of the most-streamed songs ever.
Last month, Pink Floyd made its back catalogue available on Spotify after fans streamed the song Wish You Were Here more than 1m times.
But Godrich said: "Making new recorded music needs funding. Some records can be made in a laptop, but some need musician(s) and skilled technicians. Pink Floyd's catalogue has already generated billions of dollars for someone (not necessarily the band) so now putting it on a streaming site makes total sense. But if people had been listening to Spotify instead of buying records in 1973 I doubt very much if Dark Side [of the Moon, Pink Floyd's record-breaking album released that year which sold hundreds of millions of copies] would have been made. It would just be too expensive."
The move has won support on Twitter from a number of artists, including Four Tet's Kieran Hebden, who tweeted: "I had everything on my label taken off . Don't want to be part of this crap." He added "I don't get why [it's] such a big deal to not do Spotify. My music [is] easy to get elsewhere. I'm just not into it."
Music from the Beatles and rockers AC/DC is not available on Spotify.
Other big names from the past such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson have refused to put their music on streaming services. King Crimson frontman Robert Fripp has been a vocal critic of the amounts that artists signed to labels are paid for their music – and has not acceded to putting any music on them, nor on services such as iTunes.
Post by funkybuttlovin on Jul 15, 2013 13:02:19 GMT -5
Saw his tweet. I pay for spotify so I feel less bad. I understand that artist want to get paid but I don't understand how not paying for music takes away the creativity from artists. Yes it costs money for people to make cool Sounds in a studio but I highly doubt spotify is a cause of that.
It's extremely convenient for me and other music fans to pay $10 a month to access any song you want.
I figure it's like Bonnaroo, a lot of low tier/new artists don't get paid to play but they will play in front of thousands more people than they normally do. That exposure helps them tour and gain fans that way.
If spotify got shut down or artists keep dropping their services, to think that people won't get their music without paying for it is ridiculous.
Saw his tweet. I pay for spotify so I feel less bad. I understand that artist want to get paid but I don't understand how not paying for music takes away the creativity from artists. Yes it costs money for people to make cool Sounds in a studio but I highly doubt spotify is a cause of that.
It's extremely convenient for me and other music fans to pay $10 a month to access any song you want.
I figure it's like Bonnaroo, a lot of low tier/new artists don't get paid to play but they will play in front of thousands more people than they normally do. That exposure helps them tour and gain fans that way.
If spotify got shut down or artists keep dropping their services, to think that people won't get their music without paying for it is ridiculous.
That's not actually true, is it? I would have a serious problem with that.
Saw his tweet. I pay for spotify so I feel less bad. I understand that artist want to get paid but I don't understand how not paying for music takes away the creativity from artists. Yes it costs money for people to make cool Sounds in a studio but I highly doubt spotify is a cause of that.
It's extremely convenient for me and other music fans to pay $10 a month to access any song you want.
I figure it's like Bonnaroo, a lot of low tier/new artists don't get paid to play but they will play in front of thousands more people than they normally do. That exposure helps them tour and gain fans that way.
If spotify got shut down or artists keep dropping their services, to think that people won't get their music without paying for it is ridiculous.
That's not actually true, is it? I would have a serious problem with that.
Not sure if it's true, but I have also heard that before.
Saw his tweet. I pay for spotify so I feel less bad. I understand that artist want to get paid but I don't understand how not paying for music takes away the creativity from artists. Yes it costs money for people to make cool Sounds in a studio but I highly doubt spotify is a cause of that.
It's extremely convenient for me and other music fans to pay $10 a month to access any song you want.
I figure it's like Bonnaroo, a lot of low tier/new artists don't get paid to play but they will play in front of thousands more people than they normally do. That exposure helps them tour and gain fans that way.
If spotify got shut down or artists keep dropping their services, to think that people won't get their music without paying for it is ridiculous.
That's not actually true, is it? I would have a serious problem with that.
I believe they get paid, but not much more than the cost of transportation and such.
Ya along with what is basically a ticket to Bonnaroo and food and drinks in the artist area. I have noticed a lot of the cafe bands mention how they are staying all weekend. So that is a major perk too.
Ya along with what is basically a ticket to Bonnaroo and food and drinks in the artist area. I have noticed a lot of the cafe bands mention how they are staying all weekend. So that is a major perk too.
Ya along with what is basically a ticket to Bonnaroo and food and drinks in the artist area. I have noticed a lot of the cafe bands mention how they are staying all weekend. So that is a major perk too.
I think Bonnaroo saying hey come play the biggest music fest in America for us and you can stay the whole weekend, eat our food, and we'll pay your travel. But you have to play a small stage. Is fine with many artist.
Thom Yorke blasts Spotify on Twitter as he pulls his music
Radiohead star says 'new artists get paid Quack all' on streaming service, as producer Nigel Godrich adds 'it's bad for new music'
Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify, complaining that "new artists get paid Quack all with this model".
Yorke and producer Nigel Godrich took to Twitter to express their annoyance at the business model for new artists, and explain their reasoning.
"The numbers don't even add up for Spotify yet. But it's not about that. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable," Godrich, whose production credits include albums for Radiohead and Paul McCartney, tweeted. "Meanwhile small labels and new artists can't even keep their lights on. It's just not right."
He continued: "Streaming suits [back] catalogue. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists' work. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. [Streaming services] have no power without new music."
Spotify offers a limited free streaming service, and an unlimited service at tiers of £5 and £10 a month. But some artists have complained that it is less effective for them to make music available there than to sells CDs and digital downloads because the per-stream payments are comparatively tiny.
The industry average offers slightly less than 0.4p a stream – meaning that 1m streams of a song would generate about £3,800. Most songs receive far fewer streams.
In a statement, Spotify said: "Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music. We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love.
"Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid $500m (£332m) to rights holders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach $1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music.
"We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."
A Spotify spokesperson also pointed out that Yorke's music is still available for streaming on the Google-owned YouTube video service – whose chief executive Eric Schmidt said last week about film piracy that "Our position is that somebody's making money on this pirated content and it should be possible to identify those people and bring them to justice."
The row highlights the collision between new models of listening to music created by streaming as the industry tries to find methods of dissuading fans from using illicit services to download songs for free without repaying artists.
Godrich insisted that the point was not about gaining more money for himself or Yorke, whose work with Radiohead sold millions of CDs in the past two decades. "The music industry is being taken over by the back door. And if we don't try and make it fair for new music producers and artists, then the art will suffer. Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."
Yorke pitched in to the debate. "Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly be rolling in it. Simples," he tweeted, and added as a riposte to critics that the suggestion his move was pointless missed its purpose: "'Your small meaningless rebellion is only hurting your fans ... a drop in the bucket really.' No, we're standing up for our fellow musicians."
Spotify has been having notable success getting some established bands to make their music available on its service: Daft Punk's Get Lucky rapidly became one of the most-streamed songs ever.
Last month, Pink Floyd made its back catalogue available on Spotify after fans streamed the song Wish You Were Here more than 1m times.
But Godrich said: "Making new recorded music needs funding. Some records can be made in a laptop, but some need musician(s) and skilled technicians. Pink Floyd's catalogue has already generated billions of dollars for someone (not necessarily the band) so now putting it on a streaming site makes total sense. But if people had been listening to Spotify instead of buying records in 1973 I doubt very much if Dark Side [of the Moon, Pink Floyd's record-breaking album released that year which sold hundreds of millions of copies] would have been made. It would just be too expensive."
The move has won support on Twitter from a number of artists, including Four Tet's Kieran Hebden, who tweeted: "I had everything on my label taken off . Don't want to be part of this crap." He added "I don't get why [it's] such a big deal to not do Spotify. My music [is] easy to get elsewhere. I'm just not into it."
Music from the Beatles and rockers AC/DC is not available on Spotify.
Other big names from the past such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson have refused to put their music on streaming services. King Crimson frontman Robert Fripp has been a vocal critic of the amounts that artists signed to labels are paid for their music – and has not acceded to putting any music on them, nor on services such as iTunes.
I can't even begin to imagine how deep in the hole I would be if I had to pay for every album I listen to.
I use spotify premium & it is a great way for me to discover new artists and get out and attend their shows or fests they are playing. I usually buy some sort of merch at every show I go to, also. But I just can't comprehend paying for everything I listen to anymore. I'd either need to get a second job, or drastically cut back on my listening.
Maybe this will shine a light on the compensation issue and cause them to fork over some more $ to the artists.
Ya along with what is basically a ticket to Bonnaroo and food and drinks in the artist area. I have noticed a lot of the cafe bands mention how they are staying all weekend. So that is a major perk too.
I think Bonnaroo saying hey come play the biggest music fest in America for us and you can stay the whole weekend, eat our food, and we'll pay your travel. But you have to play a small stage. Is fine with many artist.
It's not like artists that size are getting paid much more than expenses at any other show. I don't think it's appropriate for an event that can most afford to pay them to pay less.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jul 15, 2013 13:38:51 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing that Bonnaroo would be the only festival to do such a thing. I'm assuming other festivals would have some sort of similar arrangement, no?
Here's an interesting article about South by Southwest and artists who play for free (or apparently get a choice of cash or festival wristband if they are a showcase act)
UPDATE: According to SXSW representatives, bands that perform at official showcases are given two options for payment–either cash or the artist wristband package, which lets band members attend all music festival activities. About 20% take the cash option. Of those that do, bands are paid $250, while solo acts and duos are paid $100.
Thom Yorke blasts Spotify on Twitter as he pulls his music
Radiohead star says 'new artists get paid Quack all' on streaming service, as producer Nigel Godrich adds 'it's bad for new music'
Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has pulled his solo songs and those with his group Atoms For Peace from music streaming service Spotify, complaining that "new artists get paid Quack all with this model".
Yorke and producer Nigel Godrich took to Twitter to express their annoyance at the business model for new artists, and explain their reasoning.
"The numbers don't even add up for Spotify yet. But it's not about that. It's about establishing the model which will be extremely valuable," Godrich, whose production credits include albums for Radiohead and Paul McCartney, tweeted. "Meanwhile small labels and new artists can't even keep their lights on. It's just not right."
He continued: "Streaming suits [back] catalogue. But [it] cannot work as a way of supporting new artists' work. Spotify and the like either have to address that fact and change the model for new releases or else all new music producers should be bold and vote with their feet. [Streaming services] have no power without new music."
Spotify offers a limited free streaming service, and an unlimited service at tiers of £5 and £10 a month. But some artists have complained that it is less effective for them to make music available there than to sells CDs and digital downloads because the per-stream payments are comparatively tiny.
The industry average offers slightly less than 0.4p a stream – meaning that 1m streams of a song would generate about £3,800. Most songs receive far fewer streams.
In a statement, Spotify said: "Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music. We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love.
"Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid $500m (£332m) to rights holders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach $1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music.
"We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible, and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers."
A Spotify spokesperson also pointed out that Yorke's music is still available for streaming on the Google-owned YouTube video service – whose chief executive Eric Schmidt said last week about film piracy that "Our position is that somebody's making money on this pirated content and it should be possible to identify those people and bring them to justice."
The row highlights the collision between new models of listening to music created by streaming as the industry tries to find methods of dissuading fans from using illicit services to download songs for free without repaying artists.
Godrich insisted that the point was not about gaining more money for himself or Yorke, whose work with Radiohead sold millions of CDs in the past two decades. "The music industry is being taken over by the back door. And if we don't try and make it fair for new music producers and artists, then the art will suffer. Make no mistake. These are all the same old industry bods trying to get a stranglehold on the delivery system."
Yorke pitched in to the debate. "Make no mistake, new artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. Meanwhile shareholders will shortly be rolling in it. Simples," he tweeted, and added as a riposte to critics that the suggestion his move was pointless missed its purpose: "'Your small meaningless rebellion is only hurting your fans ... a drop in the bucket really.' No, we're standing up for our fellow musicians."
Spotify has been having notable success getting some established bands to make their music available on its service: Daft Punk's Get Lucky rapidly became one of the most-streamed songs ever.
Last month, Pink Floyd made its back catalogue available on Spotify after fans streamed the song Wish You Were Here more than 1m times.
But Godrich said: "Making new recorded music needs funding. Some records can be made in a laptop, but some need musician(s) and skilled technicians. Pink Floyd's catalogue has already generated billions of dollars for someone (not necessarily the band) so now putting it on a streaming site makes total sense. But if people had been listening to Spotify instead of buying records in 1973 I doubt very much if Dark Side [of the Moon, Pink Floyd's record-breaking album released that year which sold hundreds of millions of copies] would have been made. It would just be too expensive."
The move has won support on Twitter from a number of artists, including Four Tet's Kieran Hebden, who tweeted: "I had everything on my label taken off . Don't want to be part of this crap." He added "I don't get why [it's] such a big deal to not do Spotify. My music [is] easy to get elsewhere. I'm just not into it."
Music from the Beatles and rockers AC/DC is not available on Spotify.
Other big names from the past such as Led Zeppelin and King Crimson have refused to put their music on streaming services. King Crimson frontman Robert Fripp has been a vocal critic of the amounts that artists signed to labels are paid for their music – and has not acceded to putting any music on them, nor on services such as iTunes.
I can't even begin to imagine how deep in the hole I would be if I had to pay for every album I listen to.
I use spotify premium & it is a great way for me to discover new artists and get out and attend their shows or fests they are playing. I usually buy some sort of merch at every show I go to, also. But I just can't comprehend paying for everything I listen to anymore. I'd either need to get a second job, or drastically cut back on my listening.
Maybe this will shine a light on the compensation issue and cause them to fork over some more $ to the artists.
Exactly. Ease of access allows me to listen to music I wouldn't otherwise listen to. Pretty much every extra cent I have goes to paying for concerts and fests and I buy lots of shirts, posters, and albums when I go to concerts.
Maybe this will shine a light on the compensation issue and cause them to fork over some more $ to the artists.
Spotify is a great tool for scouting out new albums and artists, but IMO it isn't a replacement for music sales in any way. If they started paying artists a more reasonable amount for each play they receive, that would be a big step in the right direction, though.
I have a hard time believing that Bonnaroo would be the only festival to do such a thing. I'm assuming other festivals would have some sort of similar arrangement, no?
Here's an interesting article about South by Southwest and artists who play for free (or apparently get a choice of cash or festival wristband if they are a showcase act)
UPDATE: According to SXSW representatives, bands that perform at official showcases are given two options for payment–either cash or the artist wristband package, which lets band members attend all music festival activities. About 20% take the cash option. Of those that do, bands are paid $250, while solo acts and duos are paid $100.
I'm pretty sure every artist that plays gets an artist wristband, so I think at something at Bonnaroo they get both the wristband and the $100-250 or whatever the number is.
I have a hard time believing that Bonnaroo would be the only festival to do such a thing. I'm assuming other festivals would have some sort of similar arrangement, no?
Here's an interesting article about South by Southwest and artists who play for free (or apparently get a choice of cash or festival wristband if they are a showcase act)
UPDATE: According to SXSW representatives, bands that perform at official showcases are given two options for payment–either cash or the artist wristband package, which lets band members attend all music festival activities. About 20% take the cash option. Of those that do, bands are paid $250, while solo acts and duos are paid $100.
I'm pretty sure every artist that plays gets an artist wristband, so I think at something at Bonnaroo they get both the wristband and the $100-250 or whatever the number is.
At South x too most artists are playing multiple gigs. So they get the $250 or wristband from an official showcase, plus a few hundo from the fader fort, and another few hundred from the mountain dew stage or whatever.
I'm pretty sure every artist that plays gets an artist wristband, so I think at something at Bonnaroo they get both the wristband and the $100-250 or whatever the number is.
At South x too most artists are playing multiple gigs. So they get the $250 or wristband from an official showcase, plus a few hundo from the fader fort, and another few hundred from the mountain dew stage or whatever.
"On the cost side, meanwhile, Bonnaroo is famously thrifty. Organizers keep expenses in-house as much as possible, handling advertising through the newly launched Superfly Marketing Group and ticketing through their own website. As with any festival, the biggest expense is talent: One prominent agent who has booked multiple acts with Bonnaroo over the years estimates that the total cost of this year's bill is around $6 million, with headliners getting $1 million or more each. The economics change, though, the further you go down the bill: Second-tier acts often receive their standard fee or even less, and some lower-rung bands get nothing. They end up playing anyway because of the exposure."