Skip to main content

Radiohead's Thom Yorke, Nigel Godrich Pull Spotify Tracks

Radiohead and Atoms for Peace frontman Thom Yorke has removed multiple albums from music streaming service Spotify citing unfair profits for artists. The Wall Street Journal reports that Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke has removed multiple albums from music streaming service Spotify citing unfair profits for artists. The Wall Street Journal reports that Yorke removed his solo album, "The Eraser," along with the Atoms for Peace ablum "Amok." Atoms for Peace keyboardist and Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich also removed his own solo album, "Ultraísta."

The decision was announced by Godrich this morning via Twitter. The producer and musician tweeted, "The reason is that new artists get paid fuck all with this model. It's an equation that just doesn't work," adding that the model was 'bad for new music.'

Spotify responded to the news earlier today, stating that it has already paid $500 million to rightsholders and that this figure will reach $1 billion by the end of this year. Godrich commented on Spotify's statement, tweeting that because the money is divided up by percentage of total streams, it favors bigger companies with huge back catalogues.

Godrich described it as an act of small rebellion and called for change, implying that the three albums in question won't reappear on Spotify until something changes, though neither he nor Yorke specified that they would in fact be holding out for a change in policy.

  • marciocattini
    They fail to mention how their songs suck balls and probably no one will listen to them... Radiohead is on a different league though, probably gets more "listens" and probably earns the artists more money... I wonder why nobody is talking about the actual payment model so we can judge whether its fair or not...
    Reply
  • Fredrik Aldhagen
    Sorry, but man that first paragraph is awkwardly written.
    Reply
  • JimmiG
    "Spotify responded to the news earlier today, stating that it has already paid $500 million to rightsholders and that this figure will reach $1 billion by the end of this year. "

    There's the problem. Rightholders are rarely the artists themselves.. Someone is getting paid millions, but it isn't the artists...
    Reply
  • billybobser
    "because the money is divided up by percentage of total streams"

    can't see a problem with this, 10% of streams, 10% of pot.

    If everyone was paid a set amount and didn't vary by spotify profitability, Spotify would go under in a second.

    So what Thom York is suggesting is that Spotify should
    a) Spotify should go under supporting artists
    b) Spotify should not pay big artists

    Dreamworld
    Reply
  • aeurix
    I noted the Great Gatsby soundtrack was initially offered in full on Spotify but now has only half the tracks... more and more of the songs that I search for are not turning up and I have to try youtube. I don't care what their finance model is or what artists think of their service, but if I can't get access to songs I want to listen to, it directly affects me as a consumer. It might be time for me to cancel the Spotify Premium membership.
    Reply
  • JPForums
    "Godrich commented on Spotify's statement, tweeting that because the money is divided up by percentage of total streams, it favors bigger companies with huge back catalogues."

    As I understand it, Spotify's system favors companies with the songs people are listening to. If people are listening to the older songs in the back catalog, then the company invested in the right artists. Just because they are older doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid. Also, (note: I hate to defend large music companies, but I it is what it is) these companies did put a lot of time, money, and effort into creating these catalogs. It wouldn't be fair to the other artist to penalize them just because their song are older, or part of a larger catalog.
    Reply
  • scythe944
    No one was listening anyway. Have fun selling records radiohead.
    Reply