David Draiman Defends Spotify: 'It Has Given Us a Platform to Combat Piracy on a Real Level'
"You can't fight the future or the advancement of technology," Disturbed frontman says in response to Thom Yorke's Spotify protest.
Posted on Jul 19, 2013 03:38 pm
Recent Atoms for Peace protest against Spotify had the music world well stirred up, raising once again a series of questions and discussions on the subject of music streaming.
Among the crowd that disagrees with Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich is Disturbed frontman David Draiman, who had posted his official response to the protest via Twitlonger.
As the singer points out, "the days of the hard copy product have been over for quite some time. All artists these days are dealing with a frustrating situation when it comes to generating revenue and awareness of our respective projects, whether they be new ones, or established."Make no mistake that the reason for the current state of reduced revenues for new artists is piracy, and NOT Spotify."
Draiman then focused on the royalties issue, saying, "All artists who actually write their own songs have publishing royalties. Those royalties, unless your songs become hits, are minute, compared to the profit generated from Mp3 sales or hard record (CD/vinyl) sales."We've known that and dealt with that all of our careers. Would any songwriter out there be looking to divest themselves from the publishing infrastructure and risk loosing the potential revenue that can come from the spins a hit song generates? Of course not."Spotify is simply an alternate form of potential revenue stream much in the same way publishing royalties can be. It was never meant to be a replacement for the old retail infrastructure, it was meant to make piracy obsolete by providing an amazing online service, at a reasonable cost to the user/music fan. You cut off Spotify, and you are cutting off your nose to spite your face."
The frontman continued, saying, "If you really want to take issue with someone, take issue with the license holders of your songs and the rate you've contractually negotiated with them, not Spotify. Unlike streaming entities like Pandora for example, Spotify has never attempted to try to further limit license holders royalties in favor of a larger profit margin."The level of awareness generated by Spotify for new artists, having the engine searching your existing playlists and tastes, with the right Spotify applications such as Spotify radio, can bring your music to the ears of millions of new potential fans that just random placement on some bittorent site would never do."
Draiman then stressed that fighting changes and the natural flow of things has no point, as it can only harm the artist.
"You can't fight the future or the advancement of technology, it is pointless. There are those who have tried to cling to an antiquated retail infrastructure, that have quickly become extinct before they ever even had a chance to thrive. Do not try to coerce a new generation of fledgling artists into a stance which would be incredibly counter-productive for them, and their development of their respective brands/music."In closing, Spotify has given us a platform to finally combat piracy on a real level, created an entirely new and separate revenue stream, and brings us closer to the potential fans out there that are truly thirsting for what we have created in an efficient and economic manner."Would you rather the world simply steal your music?"
Atoms for Peace protested against Spotify by removing their record "Amok" from the service.
"It's bad for new music," Godrich said. "The reason is that new artists get paid f--k all with this model. It's an equation that just doesn't work."
The artists who have publicly disagreed with Yorke and co. also include Machine Head mainman Robb Flynn, who stated via official Facebook page that he doesn't "want to be like Thom Yorke thinking Spotify is a scary thing."