PDA

View Full Version : Pink Floyd pulls out of Pandora


AdamJoshua
07-16-2013, 02:38 PM
She isn't happy about it either...

Pink Floyd is the latest band to pull their music from Pandora due to legislation Pandora is trying to push through congress, mainly a huge pay cut for artists. P.Floyd had the following op ed piece printed below, it's fairly long so I'll just post a link. Basically Pandora is looking to cut the average artists royalty by 85%.

We've heard Pandora complain it pays too much in royalties to make a profit. (Of course, we also watched Pandora raise $235 million in its IPO and double its listeners in the last two years.) But a business that exists to deliver music can't really complain that its biggest cost is music. You don't hear grocery stores complain they have to pay for the food they sell. Netflix pays more for movies than Pandora pays for music, but they aren't running to Congress for a bailout. Everyone deserves the right to be paid a fair market rate for their work, regardless of what their work entails.

We're not saying that the music business is perfect or that there is no room to compromise. Artists would gladly work with Pandora to end AM/FM's radio exemption from paying any musician royalties a loophole that hurts artists and digital radio alike.

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

BHalbrooks
07-16-2013, 02:51 PM
Greedy bastards. In the words of Kid Rock: "Pirate my music, I don't care, I'm rich."
Do they really need the extra money? No.

Metallica sued Napster for letting people pirate their Music then realized their Music was "for the People", and dropped the suite.

dave
07-16-2013, 02:53 PM
Very hard for me to understand why music delivery is still such a PITA in 2013. IHeart blows. Slacker/Pandora are not awful, but have never streamed consistently well on a phone. Sirius is pricey and a challenge once you get out of your car. Boggles my mind that most people (to my limited observation, anyway) get their on-demand music via YouTube. And 99% of the time, the listener could care less about the video portion. What a waste of bandwidth. All because the alternatives suck. I can't believe that I still turn on local 'rock' radio occasionally, even though half of the programming makes me sick to my stomach.

kydsid
07-16-2013, 03:11 PM
I don't have any problems with Pandora on my phone. I have had a pink Floyd station on Pandora for as long as Pandora has existed. And paid for Pandora one and its predecessor for nearly as long too. I understand the bands view point and to be honest would pay more for Pandora on if need be. However I'm not gonna pay Sirius costs.

jledou
07-16-2013, 03:35 PM
I tend to side with Pandora on this one - why should they pay relatively huge fees compared to terrestrial radio stations and Sirius?

Personally I use Rhapsody's monthly subscription service which provides access to their library on and offline.

czerbe
07-16-2013, 03:45 PM
I use Pandora daily... and I also love Pink Floyd.. so

AdamJoshua
07-16-2013, 03:45 PM
Jay I think that's the problem is that just because traditional radio stations have these no royalty loop-holes doesn't mean that streamers such as pandora should be able to stick it to the artists all in the name of "we deserve to make money as well". They are in the delivery business yet are complaining about what they are paying for the items they are delivering, that doesn't really make any sense at all, the artists aren't asking them to deliver their music.

For those of you that think we are talking about millions of dollars a year here and the "greedy artists"...

It's a matter of principle for us. We hope that many online and mobile music services can give fans and artists the music they want, when they want it, at price points that work. But those same services should fairly pay the artists and creators who make the music at the core of their businesses. For almost all working musicians, it's also a question of economic survival. Nearly 90% of the artists who get a check for digital play receive less than $5,000 a year. They cannot afford the 85% pay cut Pandora asked Congress to impose on the music community

$5000 a year for 90% of the artists on Pandora, this isn't about P.F. losing millions they are actually standing up for the 90% that are getting nothing and now Pandora want's them to take an 85% pay cut out of that 5 grand. If you think this is fair to this small market artists, I'm sorry but you are the one with issues.

Edit: also Metallica didn't drop **** and call all **** off. Suit not Suite.

AdamJoshua
07-16-2013, 03:48 PM
Also just say Radiohead (whom i have no real use for anyway) just pulled out of Spotify for the same reason.

BHalbrooks
07-16-2013, 04:22 PM
Jay I think that's the problem is that just because traditional radio stations have these no royalty loop-holes doesn't mean that streamers such as pandora should be able to stick it to the artists all in the name of "we deserve to make money as well". They are in the delivery business yet are complaining about what they are paying for the items they are delivering, that doesn't really make any sense at all, the artists aren't asking them to deliver their music.

For those of you that think we are talking about millions of dollars a year here and the "greedy artists"...

Edit: also Metallica didn't drop **** and call all **** off. Suit not Suite.
"90% of artists make "$5,000" off Pandora. Obviously Pink Floyd makes more than $5k, so I don't "feel bad" for them. For the other artists that make less than $5,000 (Which is a majority), that sucks. My comment was directed at Pink Floyd being fine on money, which they are. Them doing to make a statement is another thing.

You're really going to pick apart everything I said, and correct a single word? :fp

Edit: Don't bother replying. I'm on your "Ignore" list after all. :rolleyes:

T.G
07-16-2013, 04:24 PM
Jay I think that's the problem is that just because traditional radio stations have these no royalty loop-holes doesn't mean that streamers such as pandora should be able to stick it to the artists all in the name of "we deserve to make money as well". They are in the delivery business yet are complaining about what they are paying for the items they are delivering, that doesn't really make any sense at all, the artists aren't asking them to deliver their music.

For those of you that think we are talking about millions of dollars a year here and the "greedy artists"...



$5000 a year for 90% of the artists on Pandora, this isn't about P.F. losing millions they are actually standing up for the 90% that are getting nothing and now Pandora want's them to take an 85% pay cut out of that 5 grand. If you think this is fair to this small market artists, I'm sorry but you are the one with issues.

Edit: also Metallica didn't drop **** and call all **** off. Suit not Suite.


That $5k is after the recording label gets their cut, which is huge.

A lot more than 5k is being paid out, the artists are getting screwed on the trickle down because typically they get very little from sales and broadcast royalty revenue. Bands like Pink Floyd own most, if not all, of their song rights, so they get the fat check, not the label.

AdamJoshua
07-16-2013, 05:58 PM
That $5k is after the recording label gets their cut, which is huge.

A lot more than 5k is being paid out, the artists are getting screwed on the trickle down because typically they get very little from sales and broadcast royalty revenue. Bands like Pink Floyd own most, if not all, of their song rights, so they get the fat check, not the label.

I believe the point they (Pink Floyd) are trying to make is that Pandora now wants to cut 85% of that 5K out saying they, Pandora, aren't making enough money, on the surface at least it would appear that Pink Floyd are sticking up for the little guy. Sure they are also looking out for themselves but they are hardly pulling a Metallica here.

The statement is 90% of the acts are getting that 5K range, I'm sure the rest of them are the bands that own the rights to their own music and do quite a bit better, not sure how much but certainly not 5 grand.

Personally I like to see the big guns sticking up for the smaller acts, whether they are secretly being selfish money grubbing slime, at least on the surface they are putting a good face on it and they might be able to do some good for the smaller guys in a reverse collateral damage sort of way.

Edit: Right back on.

T.G
07-16-2013, 06:50 PM
I believe the point they (Pink Floyd) are trying to make is that Pandora now wants to cut 85% of that 5K out saying they, Pandora, aren't making enough money, on the surface at least it would appear that Pink Floyd are sticking up for the little guy. Sure they are also looking out for themselves but they are hardly pulling a Metallica here.

The statement is 90% of the acts are getting that 5K range, I'm sure the rest of them are the bands that own the rights to their own music and do quite a bit better, not sure how much but certainly not 5 grand.

Personally I like to see the big guns sticking up for the smaller acts, whether they are secretly being selfish money grubbing slime, at least on the surface they are putting a good face on it and they might be able to do some good for the smaller guys in a reverse collateral damage sort of way.

Edit: Right back on.


No, Pandora doesn't specifically want to cut 85% of the artists fee, they want to cut 85% of what they are paying the label, the artists are inconsequential victims of circumstance in this.

The music industry really isn't that simple when it comes to who gets what when it comes to payouts. The record label took all the financial risk with the songwriter, the artists, the recording, production, distribution and promotion/advertising, therefore they tend to get the biggest slice of the pie. All kinds of other guys get paid off, like the producer, and then finally the songwriter and the artists. A few percent is about all that's left for them, since, from a financial business risk aspect, all they did was hum a few bars. Everyone in that chain is going to take an 85% hit here, not just the artists.

Of course they are getting screwed. But if Pandora were just writing a 5k check direct to the artists, probably wouldn't be having this conversation. But they're not, they're writing 100k (or whatever) checks to the labels per artist and the artists are only getting paid a few percent of that.

It's easier to manipulate emotions by saying "the poor artists, look what they are doing to the poor artists" than it is to take on the 900lb gorilla that controls your (Pink Floyd included) revenue stream and point out that it's the labels making out on both ends.

I'm not against what PF is doing, just pointing out that it's far bigger thing than the way they wrote it.

AdamJoshua
07-17-2013, 02:26 PM
I understand all of that and agree with what you wrote, knowing several people in small bands and even a couple in moderately successful bands that have made a few bucks, I tend to, like a lot of people, side with the smaller fish in the pond that's all.

I think most people realize that a majority of the pie these days comes from concert ticket and merch sales, at least more than other revenue streams. Let's be honest Pandora and other streaming services are only going to help artists as far as those two items, you get music pipped into you through your pc, your phone, your tablet, your care and you are more likely to want to (at least a lot of people) see them live.

mosesbotbol
07-17-2013, 02:58 PM
Digital Age has killed making money in the music industry. When was the last time anyone of you bought CD's or paid for a whole album download from iTunes like we bought music 10 years ago. It's a sinking ship and I don't blame the artists for trying to get what they can. Touring is how musicians make money in this era.

kydsid
07-17-2013, 05:56 PM
I thought tours where how every artist has ever made money? Album sales and royalties have always gone to the labels and content owner.

If it wasn't that way then why did Michael Jackson but the Beatles catalog?

mosesbotbol
07-18-2013, 06:25 AM
I thought tours where how every artist has ever made money? Album sales and royalties have always gone to the labels and content owner.

If it wasn't that way then why did Michael Jackson but the Beatles catalog?

Artists typically got about a $1 an album. Since people download just one or two songs instead of the album, the royalty is just a a fraction of that.

Tours were to support the album (along with just making money).

xFreebirdx
07-18-2013, 06:57 AM
I don't know, I'm coming from a age group that has bought Albums/45's, 8 tracks, Cassettes, CD's, and Downloads all of the same album. To me Artists and "Labels" own a gift that keeps on giving...... I have no sympathy for them. ;)

When you have lived through so many medium changes, you'll understand. :)

The Poet
07-18-2013, 11:01 AM
All in all, it's just another dick in the wallet.

kydsid
10-18-2013, 08:05 PM
Three months later and I'm still rocking to pink Floyd on Pandora. :sh