The Day Nigel Godrich Made Twitter Explode

By now, everyone who works in the music industry, has a Twitter account or, presumably, is a person on Earth with access to technology, has heard about music producer Nigel Godrich and his Twitter lambasting of Spotify this past Sunday.

In a series of tweets that stated, among other things, “We’re off of Spotify. Can’t do that no more man – small meaningless rebellion. Someone gotta say something. It’s bad for new music.. The reason is that new artists get paid fuck all with this model.. It’s an equation that just doesn’t work.

And with that, Godrich elaborated on the current flaws in the streaming model in a series of tweets that sent the web, ahem, atwitter.
“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.”
Fans, industry folk, and musos began to feverishly tweet in response to what Godrich had said with reactions ranging from supportive, negative, and those which demonstrated clearly how little people understand the music industry and its harsh reality.
I’ve been a Twitter follower of Nigel’s since he’s been on the social media site and have never seen him as engaged and passionate as he’s been over the past few days, which in itself is a good thing. The thing about passion is it’s a contagion; when one of the top producers in the world takes a stand on something which effects musicians everywhere, people listen. When that producer is subsequently backed up in his stance by his Atoms for Peace bandmate who also happens to be Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke, people listen even more.
The debate on streaming and how good or bad it may be for artists is far from new. In recent weeks Pandora has been persona non grata for their attempts at legal tactics and corporate maneuvering which would allow them to pay artists even less than they already do, and David Lowery, lead singer for Cracker and Camper van Beethoven has always been very vocal in his disdain for the streaming model.

To make all of this even more interesting, Radiohead co-manager and manager of Thom Yorke’s solo career, Brian Message, spoke about this maelstrom by showing support for Spotify. Obviously standing by his artist all the while, Message stated that companies such as Spotify are in early stages and they are great for fan engagement. He went on to say that the debate being had is a wonderful thing and that moving forward, artists, managers, and creators will work together to come to terms on ‘equitable remuneration.’

Not surprisingly, Spotify released a statement in reaction to ‘The Godrich Tweets’ which reads as follows;

“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,” a company spokesperson said today.
“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 US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$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.”

Producer Stephen Street sent one of the snarkier tweets about this debate, comparing Yorke’s complaints about Spotify to his own when Radiohead released In Rainbows on a ‘pay what you like’ model.
“Bit rich coming from Thom Yorker that Spotify doesn’t work for new artists. It’s exactly what I said when Radiohead made their album available for free/ pay what you want a few years back.”
Yorke responded by saying “For me In Rainbows was a statement of trust .people still
value new music. That’s all we’d like from Spotify – don’t make us the target.”

While there are many, many issues with what the evolution of technology has turned the music industry into, one thing remains true; new artists are expected to compete at the same level as established artists and that is absolutely ridiculous, for a myriad of reasons.
The likes of Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich have spoken about the inequities of Spotify because they are at stages in their careers where they can afford to and have the power to do so.

While we may not know what will eventually happen with the streaming model, a few things are certain;
~Streaming is the model for the present, as well as the future. Currently, Spotify has over 24 million users, 6 million of whom are paid subscribers and
Pandora had 71.1 million listeners this past June, an increase of 30% from the same time last year.
~Both Spotify and Pandora are making millions upon millions of dollars off of artists and paying a pittance in return. Their spokespeople can release as many statements as they’d like but there’s no way to slice the pie to make it look like artists aren’t losing out in a major way.
The argument is often made that fans who stream music in turn spend money on concert tickets, merchandise, music, and other things to support the artist. That may be true, but it doesn’t negate the fact that corporate monkeys at Spotify, et al, are making money off of music that they had no hand in creating, while the people who created it are not.

So now is the time for some semblance of fairness to be found. Surely there is a payment schematic which would allow corporate types to earn fatcat salaries while paying artists more than fractions of a cent per one hundred plays.
As it stands at the moment, the Atoms for Peace, Ultraista, and Thom Yorke music has been pulled from Spotify. The Radiohead catalog remains, save for In Rainbows, which has never been on the site. Since it seems as though the issue as hand is with the lack of fairness to artists than with the technology itself, perhaps that music will resurface one day.
In the meantime, the powers that be must work to devise a realistic payment model which provides a fair environment for emerging artists. In this case, it would seem the powers that be include those at Spotify, Pandora, artists themselves, managers, people who work in the music industry, and fans themselves. The discourse brought about by this has been nothing short of fascinating at a time when it’s most needed. How Mr. Godrich has dealt with the media attention this has gotten. He very kindly retweeted a message of mine and I’ve been having a difficult time keeping up with subsequent emails, direct messages, tweets, and web site correspondence. I know how passionately I feel about this issue, among others, and I know that as soon as he began tweeting on Sunday, I was firing off replies to him one after the other. There is much to be discussed from many perspectives but ultimately one thing remains of utmost importance; fair compensation for artists.
In a closing tweet, Godrich had this to say; It’s not for us to think up how it could work.. That’s your department. Over.. That’s all I gotta say really. Sorry for the rant.

No apology needed.

To read the full thread, responses, or to follow Nigel Godrich on Twitter go HERE It’s worth reading the correspondence on Twitter just to gauge where people fall on the spectrum.

To listen to Brian Message’s thoughts on the issue go HERE