8Sided Blog

the scene celebrates itself

A Tale of Two Copyright Rulings

by // 2 Comments

img-0

This week saw a couple of big events in the world of music copyright. First off, resolution to the Kraftwerk “Metal On Metal” case in the EU courts, as mentioned previously. Here’s Complete Music Update:

The court said in a statement yesterday: “Phonogram producers have the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit reproduction in whole or in part of their phonograms. Consequently, the reproduction by a user of a sound sample, even if very short, taken from a phonogram must, in principle, be regarded as a reproduction ‘in part’ of that phonogram so that such a reproduction falls within the exclusive right granted to the phonogram producer”.

But what about the artistic freedom of the sampler that the German Constitutional Court was so concerned about? Well, the ECJ has put some constraints on its main ruling. […] In the words of the court: “Where a user, in exercising the freedom of the arts, takes a sound sample from a phonogram in order to embody it, in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear in another phonogram, that is not a ‘reproduction’”. That conclusion is necessary, the court then added, to properly balance the rights of an intellectual property owner with the rights of artistic freedom.

There’s been the myth of a time allowance on samples, that if one samples only two-seconds (or another arbitrary small amount) then, legally, everything is okay. This has never been true in the short history of sample litigation. The issue is identifiably and uniqueness. If, say, a jury can point to a phrase and agree that it’s an unauthorized appropriation of a master recording (a sample) then it’s likely deemed copyright infringement. The length doesn’t matter.

The confusion is probably due to the lack of precedent and definition in the US courts. There hasn’t been a high profile episode like the Kraftwerk complaint yet. So, while the ruling of the EU court doesn’t necessarily say anything new (and it doesn’t add any new limitations, despite what some clickbait headlines might lead one to believe) it is good to have the context fully explained by a legal body.

Then there’s the court’s additional opinion on the artist who artistically messes with a sample to the point of ambiguity. Of course, that artist is in the clear — thanks, EU court — but that’s not so much because it’s ‘artistic freedom.’ It’s that ideally, no one would identify the errant sample in the first place. In other words, sample away. Just be sure to muck that thing up beyond all recognition.

The other big copyright news concerns this Katy Perry vs. Flame outcome. Rolling Stone:

A jury unanimously ruled that Katy Perry’s 2013 hit single “Dark Horse” improperly copied Christian rapper Flame’s 2009 song “Joyful Noise.” The nine-member federal jury in a Los Angeles determined that Perry and her co-writers and producers will owe [$2.78 million in] damages for copyright infringement. […]

Perry, who was not present when the verdict was read, testified that she had never heard “Joyful Noise,” nor heard of Flame, before the lawsuit. Her co-writers testified similarly. Flame’s lawyers responded that the song was widely distributed, with millions of plays on YouTube and Spotify, and reminded the jury of Perry’s origins in the Christian music scene. His team argued that Perry and her team had ripped off the main beat and instrumental line of “Joyful Noise.”

One remarkable aspect is the quoting of YouTube and Spotify plays as evidence that obviously everyone’s heard the song. Umm … okay. Have Spotify plays been argued as evidence in court before?

My feelings, but dialed down a bit, echo those of YouTuber Adam Neely in this video (and kudos for pointing out the similarity of the phrase in question to a famous song by The Art of Noise, which I haven’t seen anyone else mention):

Watch on YouTube

Additionally, Flame’s Marcus Gray added in his original complaint that “Joyful Noise” has been “irreparably tarnished by its association with the witchcraft, paganism, black magic, and Illuminati imagery evoked by the same music in ‘Dark Horse.‘” Of course, there are some kooky internet ‘theories’ out there about Katy Perry and the Illuminati. But I don’t know why people fear the Illuminati so much … if this all-powerful organization couldn’t help Katy Perry win this case then I doubt they’re competent enough to secretly run the world.1Though a hidden overload’s incompetency could explain the current state of affairs.

Apple Gains as Songwriters Come Out Against Spotify

by // Leave a Comment

img-1

Billboard:

In 2017, Spotify launched its Secret Genius Awards annual event to honor songwriters and producers behind some of the streaming platform’s most-played songs. But now some of those same honorees are speaking out about something much less celebrated — Spotify’s plan to appeal Copyright Royalty Board rates, along with Google, Pandora and Amazon.

“We’re hurt and disappointed,” the dozens of songwriters wrote in an an open letter to Spotify on Tuesday (April 9) addressed to Spotify chief Daniel Ek and shared with Billboard. “You created a songwriter relations team and ingratiated Spotify into our community. We know that you are not the only DSP appealing the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) rate determination. You are, however, the only provider that made us feel we were working to build a modern music industry together.”

It seems silly, from a PR standpoint, that Spotify would pick this battle (along with another two at the same time). But how could the company know that songwriters — and a good segment of the industry — would come together with such force? Historically musicians and their industry don’t exactly agree, delivering a fragmented and unfocused protest at best. Perhaps songwriters have been emboldened by the Music Modernization Act, or the pervasive atmosphere of protest we live in now, or the vilification of the tech industry by its own actions, led by Facebook. A combination of the three is most likely.

Spotify will probably be the loser in this PR war. And the winner might be the tech giant that’s sitting this one out, according to Variety:

Ultimately, Apple, which for years was the company the music industry most loved to hate, is now in an enviable position. If Spotify wins its appeal against the CRB — which is considered a long shot — Apple benefits by paying reduced royalty rates. If Spotify loses the appeal, Apple, by not joining the other streamers, looks like the hero. And if, at the urging of songwriters, artists start jumping on a #CancelSpotify bandwagon, Apple Music stands to gain subscribers.

“Unlike Spotify, music is not Apple’s core business, thus allowing [it] to sit this one out, with Spotify taking the heat and the legal bills that follow,” says Jeff Rabhan, chair of the Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at NYU Tisch. “By choosing to watch this war from the sidelines, Apple has made a brilliant move by making no move at all.”

🔗→ Spotify’s Secret Genius Songwriters Pen Letter to Daniel Ek Over CRB Rate Appeal: ‘You Have Used Us’
🔗→ Apple Is the Real Winner in Spotify’s Battle Against Songwriters’ Rate Hike

Red Bull Music Academy’s Closing and the Mirror Universe

by // 2 Comments

img-2

Marc Schneider in Billboard:

Energy drink maker Red Bull is ending its partnership with consultancy company Yadastar, which oversaw the Red Bull Music Academy and its associated entities, including a radio station, event and festival series and online publication. As a result, RBMA and Red Bull Radio will cease operations in their current forms as of late October, Yadastar announced on Wednesday. […] Whether that means the ultimate end for Red Bull’s foray into radio and other types of music-focused projects Yadastar oversaw remains to be seen. A Red Bull spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Corporate patronage is always tricky, even more so in the current age when ‘brand partnerships’ are how some artists are able to maintain careers freely. But Red Bull’s embrace and support of usually electronic, often uncommercial music didn’t come off like a brand alliance. You can either see that as a savvy success in sophisticated brand management or a resource-draining failure. I bet Red Bull’s attitude steadily shifted from the former to the latter over 21 years. All I know is I’m a huge fan of the music history journalism on Red Bull Academy Daily — check out this Simon Reynolds piece on the North American ‘60s acid rock electronic avant-garde! — and many of the programs on Red Bull Radio — holy cats, this entire archive of Kirk Degiorgio’s Sound Obsession show! But I don’t think I’ve popped the tab on a can of a Red Bull drink in at least a decade. I’m not alone, and I’m sure plenty in C-level management at the company have issues with Academy fans like me.

Ed Gillett in The Quietus:

… however gentle Red Bull’s advertising may have been on the surface, it’s self-evident that those holding the purse strings would have expected a meaningful return on such substantial investment. RBMA’s vast trove of learning and experience may have functioned as a public good, but it was not incorporated or owned as one – ultimately, if and when it no longer made financial sense to Red Bull’s owners for it to exist, then its importance to a wider community of artists and listeners could never have been enough to save it.

In this, RBMA reveals the uncomfortable truth that many of the most influential nodes in our collective network of globalised underground music, whether news sites subsidised by property developers or streaming platforms funded by venture capital, rely not only on the creative communities who provide their content and create their value, but also on the continued indulgence of wealthy benefactors, whose priorities can and will change. In Red Bull’s case, an expectation of the eternal good will of CEO and owner Dietrich Mateschitz might be viewed as optimistic, given his widely-publicised and noxiously reactionary political views.

Is a reliance on (or an optimistic holding-out for charity from) corporate patronage keeping grassroots artistic communities from forming? What will happen to the community around Red Bull Music Academy? Is it shattered? Will we all go home now that the money isn’t there? Or, more importantly, do we need that money to maintain an influential and productive community?

I look at dublab which has independently operated as an online radio station — and, yes, a community of artists — since 1999. Sure, they list RBMA as a ‘programming partner’ (I don’t think there’s any funding involved), but the organization is, for the most part, listener and event supported. There’s a culture based around dublab, very much tied to the Los Angeles underground. They don’t have the impact of a Red Bull Radio but imagine a dublab in every city with an underground music scene. Now imagine all those stations and communities networking and supporting each other. That’s powerful stuff, and a CEO’s supposed altruism isn’t required.

img-3

Let’s circle back to the high-quality content RBMA, and its contributors, have gifted us. In the paragraph above I mentioned two favorites: the Simon Reynolds article and Sound Obsession show archive. I hope you aren’t reading this after October, clicking those links, and finding dead web pages. That’s another worrying problem — art becomes ephemeral when it’s subject to and owned by a corporate patron. If Red Bull is ready to wash its hands of the expense of artistic charity, what further incentive is there to keep the content online?

Terry Matthew in 5 Magazine:

We like to think that information, which wants to be free, will also propagate on its own: that once released, a document or story will be replicated in so many places that you can never take it down again. The internet is forever, we think – but it’s not. According to a New Yorker story by Jill LePore about the Internet Archive, the average life of a web page is about a hundred days. […]

Carter Maness brought this up four years ago about the fate of thousands of blog posts he’d written while employed by AOL and other media companies. “We assume everything we publish online will be preserved,” he wrote. “But websites that pay for writing are businesses. They get sold, forgotten and broken. Eventually, someone flips the switch and pulls it all down. Hosting charges are eliminated, and domain names slip quietly back into the pool. What’s left behind once the cache clears? As I found with that pitch at the end of 2014, my writing resume is now oddly incomplete and unverifiable.” Maness published this story on The Awl, itself defunct and starting to show visual signs of code decay.

Of course, this isn’t solely a problem of corporate patronage. dublab could cease operations tomorrow, the entire site and archive vanishing into the digital ether. And it’s not just a digital feature either — there have been repeated stories of film history destroyed in warehouse fires. But things do get messier if RBMA claims ownership of its material and Simon Reynolds can’t re-post his article on his blog, or Kirk Degiorgio isn’t allowed to upload his Sound Obsession archive to another site. That’s where the subject of patronage matters the most — when reproduction is possible and warranted, but the dual roadblocks of sponsored ownership and digital obsolescence realize a mirror universe where the artwork never existed.

🔗→ Red Bull Music Academy, Red Bull Radio to Shut Down
🔗→ What Does Red Bull’s Corporate Exit Means For Underground Music?
🔗→ 404: The Internet Has A Memory Problem

Robots vs. Curators: The Battle Begins

by // Leave a Comment

img-4

Techcrunch:

Spotify … announced a major change to how its playlists will operate, with the news that some of its previously human-curated [editorial] playlists will now be personalized based on listeners’ tastes. […] “Some playlists will now be personalized for each listener based on their particular taste. This means that for those specific playlists, no two will be the same,” the company shared in a blog post.

Spotify says it decided to make this change after finding that users listened longer to the personalized playlists, during a trial of the new system. It also notes that the new system will increase the number of artists featured on playlists by 30 percent and the number of songs listened to by 35 percent — metrics that artists will surely like.

I’m a huge fan of increasing discovery opportunities, so I welcome and am intrigued by this news. Though I wonder if Spotify’s creating a musical version of the ‘Facebook bubble,’ where listeners with narrow tastes don’t get introduced to artists outside of their established spectrum. The algorithmic playlist change could be beneficial for new artists among listeners with an already broad predilection and great for classic, already well-known catalog artists with everyone else.

Matty Karas isn’t having it. He wrote this rebuttal in the 3/28/19 edition of the Music:REDEF newsletter:

But sometimes I really, really don’t want personalization. Like when I decide to click on my preferred ANTI. I don’t want to hear the re-sequenced version of the album that Spotify thinks would be best for me, and I don’t want to start on track 2, no matter how great track 2 is. If I wanted that, I would’ve clicked directly on it. I want to hear the album Rihanna actually made, sequenced and mastered. That was the intention of my click. Likewise any of the playlists that I follow. I follow them because I like the music and the flow and/or I like and trust the curator. The unspoken agreement between me and them is they’ll put thought and effort into the playlist and I’ll listen. Period. […]

Labels love this, I’m told, because it’s a way to get more tracks and therefore more labels on any given playlist. But who wants that kind of democracy? I want the four most interesting, pertinent, appropriate tracks you’ve got, not one from each of the three major labels and one from a token indie. Does anybody not want that? […] I want my curators to lead. If they’re just passively following me, why exactly am I following them?

Luckily there are many curated third-party playlists out there, but those are for the ‘broad’ listeners mentioned above. Maybe we’re selfishly expecting the majority of listeners — the ones who, in the past, mainly listened to music via commercial radio on car commutes — to explore and embrace new artists. Spotify’s giving the majority of its users what they want (and I won’t lie —algorithmic playlists are fascinating and fun) while the rest of us can dig into curated niche selections like this. Or this.

Elephant, get into that room. Let’s talk about Apple Music. The industry is expecting the company to copy Spotify and start introducing their own sophisticated algorithmic playlists. However, I’d like to see them lean into curation. Apple Music has flirted with playlists compiled by influencers and other notables, but they are hardly visible — the ones that exist are sort of difficult to find. If Apple can get Oprah and Spielberg on stage to promote its TV offering, then why not enlist playlists from heavy hitters? And I’m not talking lazy extensions of Beats 1 shows. Perhaps Frank Ocean’s ‘Songs I Listened To Growing Up.’ Mitski’s ‘Songs I’m Playing on the Bus While On Tour.’ Convince Four Tet to move this over to Apple Music. Put some fun and personalization into it — what makes that Four Tet playlist so cool is that there’s no doubt he’s adding the songs to it himself.

Let Spotify have the algorithms. Apple probably won’t be able to catch up anyway. Apple Music already subtly differentiates itself by being friendlier to the album format — they should go all in on the taste-making curator as well.

🔗→ Spotify expands personalization to its programmed playlists
🔗→ Music:REDEF – March 28, 2019

Spotify is “Effectively Suing Songwriters”

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

Yesterday (March 7), it emerged that four major owners of digital music services – Spotify, Amazon, Google and Pandora – had lodged legal appeals against the US Copyright Royalty Board’s recent decision to raise streaming royalties for songwriters (and music publishers) by 44%. That royalty rise, which previously looked locked in, is now in serious jeopardy.

Apple Music, in contrast, has accepted the new rates, and declined to challenge what’s viewed as an important pay hike for songwriters.

Remember when Kendrick Lamar and (reportedly) other artists threatened to pull music from Spotify over the arbitrary ‘hate conduct’ ban policy? Spotify quickly backtracked. This might be another opportunity for artists to show Spotify and the streaming industry who really needs who more.

And, as with privacy, Apple continues to brand themselves as the company that does the right thing. I’ll contain my cynicism (which I have for any corporate organization) and say ‘good on them.’

🔗→ Wait… Spotify is ‘suing songwriters’? What the heck is going on?

Spotify’s Rights Gamble in India

by // Leave a Comment

img-5

Complete Music Update:

{Warner/Chappell} went to court in India last week ahead of Spotify’s long-awaited launch in the market. The mini-major is yet to agree to a deal with Spotify for India, and that deal would cover Warner’s Anglo-American songs repertoire as well as its recordings catalogue. {…}

Spotify’s solution to that problem was to argue that there is a compulsory licence available under Indian copyright law which means it can utilise Warner’s songs without a bespoke direct deal, providing it pays the royalties due under that compulsory licence. Warner argues that the compulsory licence Spotify is relying on doesn’t apply to on-demand streaming services, and it wants a court order confirming that fact. The legal spat is ongoing.

… and then via Variety:

Spotify, which finally launched in India last Tuesday — albeit without securing a deal with Warner Music — after months of delays, says that it has reached 1 million users on both its paid and free tiers in just under a week.

This impressive sounding news has spread quickly throughout the media. It’s almost like Spotify’s PR is actively pushing this ‘1 million users’ number to trumpet the importance of the platform in the Indian market, eh? One could even see a strategy similar to Spotify’s ascension in the US with regards to publishing rights — show that the music needs Spotify more than the other way around, and figure out the rights later.

The Verge, however, rains on this parade:

India’s total population is 1.34 billion people, but only about 150 million, or about 11 percent, subscribe to a music streaming service, according to a report by Deloitte and Indian music-industry body IMI published earlier this year. Of this 150 million, less than one percent of subscribers pay for a subscription and about 14 percent have a bundled subscription (such as Amazon Prime, or through a mobile contract). The remaining 85 percent stream music with free subscriptions. So, while 1 million is a large number, Spotify is reaching less than one percent of the Indian music streaming population, and it has likely signed up few paid subscribers.

… and the publishers are buckling down, according, again, to Complete Music Update:

… you might expect those publishers which do have deals with Spotify in India to be on the streaming service’s side. Except, Spotify’s interpretation of Indian copyright law extends the reach of compulsory licensing in India. And if there’s one thing all labels and publishers hate more than anything else, it’s the idea of the reach of compulsory licensing being extended.

That is the reason why, shortly after a board meeting of the {International Confederation Of Music Publishers}, the trade group’s Director General John Phelan stated: “Music publishers worldwide work in the interest of all creators and will fight for appropriate remuneration for all licensed use of their work. At the heart of this problem is the inappropriate use of music and the subsequent undervaluation of songwriters – Indian and international. ICMP and its members express their full support of Warner/Chappell Music in its actions”.

I’ll close with a damning observation from David Turner in today’s installment of his excellent Penny Fractions newsletter:

… this situation reminds me of Spotify’s early usage of pirated music to launch the company {as detailed in the new book Spotify Teardown}. The attempt to skirt Indian law in how they licensed the music of Warner Music Group isn’t bold or interesting, it’s just unethical.

This could get messy.

🔗→ Global music publishing group backs Warner in its Spotify spat in India
🔗→ Spotify India Reaches 1 Million Total Users in First Week
🔗→ Spotify just made a tiny dent in India’s fast-growing market
🔗→ Penny Fractions: Why You Must Read ‘Spotify Teardown’

Netflix and the Future of Award-Winning Indies

by // Leave a Comment

img-6

Anne Thompson in Indiewire:

{Steven Spielberg’s} Academy Award attention is now devoted to ensuring that the race never sees another “Roma” — a Netflix film backed by massive sums, that didn’t play by the same rules as its analog-studio competitors. {…} As far as he’s concerned, as it currently stands Netflix should only compete for awards in the Emmy arena … {…}

“There’s a growing sense that if [Netflix] is going to behave like a studio, there should be some sort of standard,” said one Academy governor. “The rules were put into effect when no one could conceive of this present or this future. We need a little clarity.”

The landscape is changing so fast for film, and Spielberg and company should be advised to tread lightly. I understand the need for guidelines but what separates a ‘TV show’ from a ‘feature film’ is probably the wrong question and one we may not need to ask in several years. That separation, more and more, is about the budget — with superhero and ‘event’ films dominating the cineplexes while daring directors have no choice but to turn to the streaming studios.

And who can blame them? The number of people that saw Roma vs. its audience if it had a traditional theater release is unarguably exponential. And a common complaint about Oscar fare is that not enough people have seen these films, or can see these films as they are often in limited (or arthouse) runs. Now more people are watching great movies. I don’t understand how Spielberg sees this as a bad thing. Or, even if he does — my guess (and hope) is his opposition is overblown, that he’s exploring guidelines that reflect a changing industry. After all, I can’t imagine he’d want to rebuff Martin Scorsese, whose next film is a Netflix joint.

I personally feel we’re entering a golden age for independent film. But that golden age will primarily exist on our televisions.

Also, in the Indiewire piece, there’s a list of reasons why Netflix supposedly has an unfair advantage. This one caught my eye:

Netflix spent too much. One Oscar strategist estimated “Roma” at $50 million in Oscar spend, with “Green Book” at $5 million.

Ultimately, awards are nonsense though I understand the marketing benefits, role in legacy-setting, and prestige. But at least we should keep some veneer of the ‘best film’ as the winner of Best Film. If an out-of-control marketing budget for an Oscar campaign is an unfair advantage, then I feel the problem lies within the Academy and the voting process.

Insert comment about parallels with the screwed-up state of US democracy here.

🔗→ The Spielberg vs. Netflix Battle Could Mean Collateral Damage for Indies at the Oscars

SoundCloud’s Distribution: Not Taking a Cut?

by // Leave a Comment

img-7

Kori Hale in Forbes:

SoundCloud’s new Premiere distribution channel should streamline the money artists receive from various platforms, and help monetize their music through a revenue sharing program. By Investing in tools artists need, CultureBanx reported they can offer more value and potentially become a more profitable company, instead of trying to directly compete with Apple Music and Spotify.{…}

SoundCloud won’t take a cut of the payouts artist receive from the other music streaming services. The new distribution tool will be available to eligible SoundCloud Pro $6/month and SoundCloud Pro Unlimited $12/month subscribers.

As MusicAlly reported, SoundCloud’s distribution engine is powered by FUGA. I can’t imagine FUGA isn’t taking a cut, so my guess is that SoundCloud won’t take anything off the net received from FUGA. If SoundCloud is selling this as if artists will get the full distributor percentage from Spotify and Apple Music it’s disingenuous. Does anyone know the deal?

🔗→ SoundCloud’s Urban Culture Streams Into Spotify & Apple Music

Spotify and the GIF as Album Cover

by // Leave a Comment

via Hypebot:

Spotify is beta testing Canvas, a new feature which allows artists and labels to add a fullscreen, 3-8 second moving visual to tracks. It replaces cover art and will loop in the Now Playing view of the Spotify app.

Remember when a few ambitious bands released LPs with trippy 3D covers, and you had to wear special glasses to appreciate the artwork? This is kind of like that but also nothing like that at all.

This GIF linked in the article shows the feature in action. Though that example is a bit underwhelming, it does give an opening taste of how streaming platforms will utilize visuals. The forever morphing album cover isn’t far off.

Some people aren’t having it. Via Lifehacker:

I think Canvas is a neat idea—it’s essentially an album art GIF—but I tend to listen to Spotify rather than watch it, so the idea of an endlessly looping video seems like a silly waste of data. Spotify says Canvas is “optimized to use very little data and battery,” so I don’t want to overemphasize the impact of turning it off, but it’s still something you should consider if you don’t want the annoyance.

🔗→ With Spotify Canvas, Artists Add Moving Visuals To Tracks
🔗→ How to Get Rid of Spotify’s Looping ‘Canvas’ Videos

SoundCloud’s Move Into Distribution

by // 1 Comment

img-8

SoundCloud continues to make major moves … via MacRumors:

SoundCloud today announced a new feature that allows creators to distribute their music directly to major streaming music services like Apple Music, Spotify, and Amazon Music. The tool will be included in SoundCloud Pro and Pro Unlimited subscription tiers for artists, and each artist will get 100 percent of earnings back from each streaming platform, meaning SoundCloud won’t take any cuts and won’t charge additional distribution fees.

Note that a participating artist account will have to show at least 1,000 plays a month in regions where SoundCloud subscriptions and advertising are active. A SoundCloud Pro account ($6/month) seems to allow distribution of a single release — I assume that’s per year, based on the yearly rate. The SoundCloud Pro Unlimited subscription ($12/month) gives the artist unlimited distribution.

This landscape is going to get a whole lot more interesting if the DSPs get into a sort of distribution battle. What features and analytics are coming to differentiate each of the services? I am sure these will exploit the advantages of being aligned with the native platform of the distributor — perks on SoundCloud, perks on Spotify. Dedicated distributors like Symphonic will still have a role as they offer expanded label services (playlist pitching, sync, publicity, etc.) that the streamers don’t provide (yet). An advantage for dedicated distributors is they will pitch and promote across all platforms instead of mainly focusing on one. I doubt SoundCloud’s distribution will pull much weight when it comes to Spotify placement and vice versa.

If you use Spotify or SoundCloud or — someday soon, I’m sure — Apple Music for distribution the choice will come down to which platform makes the most sense for you. Where are you strongest? Which streamer best aligns with your genre or brand? If you’re a singles artist, releasing a song every couple of weeks or so, then SoundCloud is the platform for you. SoundCloud’s design has always favored the prolific singles artist, and having these individual songs appear everywhere else is icing on the cake.

Is there a downside for SoundCloud? Part of the platform’s appeal is an egalitarian approach to user content — anyone can upload anything — and the byproduct is a lot of music found only on SoundCloud. That’s how ‘SoundCloud rap’ got its name after all — for a while, SoundCloud was the only place one could find those artists. If this distribution service makes it just as easy to upload content to its competitors, then SoundCloud could lose its tastemaking edge. Why keep anything exclusively on SoundCloud anymore?

Oh, and this is interesting, via Music Business Worldwide:

To use the toolset, these artists must also have no copyright strikes against their music on SoundCloud at the time of enrollment.

Obviously, this is meant to thwart the distribution of content not owned by the user (a big problem for these uncurated distribution portals). But it’s also a clever way to make SoundCloud’s users think twice before uploading those unauthorized remixes for distribution or otherwise. That said, it would be nice if there was a tool to show whether a DJ mix or remix would be flagged before it’s posted, or if its content safely fell under the Dubset umbrella. It would suck to get flagged for a song innocently included in a DJ mix and have the distribution option deactivated as a result.

🔗→ SoundCloud Premier
🔗→ SoundCloud’s New Tool Lets Artists Distribute Music Directly to Apple Music and Spotify
🔗→ SoundCloud is now a distributor: Platform launches tool for users to upload music to Spotify, Apple Music etc.