Pink Floyd on Pandora

This is a two way street. Some might suggest that artists (at least the ones that are relatively unknown or extremely ambitious) should be paying Pandora, and not the other way around. I own all of Joe Bonnamassa's CDs. I might not have heard him if not for Pandora.

Danaroo has a good point which I agree with. Those guys need Pandora. Pink Floyd does not. Pandora might need Pink Floyd so they can use them as a seed to help people find other lesser known similar artists. Even newer popular money making artists might need Pandora and their ilk as a means of helping not fall off the map as their star fades. Artists I hear on Pandora like Rhianna, Flo Rida, and many others. Artist like Pink Floyd who are well past their prime but still manage to retain popularity, less so, but not totally. So I could understand where Pink Floyd thinks they are not getting a good deal. Of course, these kind of acts are not starving artists and in most any other industry would be fully retired by now with NO new income coming in (other than retirement savings, Social Security, etc.). So they really need to not buck the system too much and be thankful they are still receiving royalties for their past work.

The holy grail for the music industry right now is to create a cloud based subscription service locking consumers into a monthly payment that can be raised over time like the television cable model. The complexities come into play when the cash flow is carved up. Of course, the cable tv model is under pressure from the internet viewing model as technology continues to progress. I am encouraged by the resurrecting vinyl movement even though I own a ridiculous number of cd's. Music services are great in the car, but I still enjoy tangible assets with cool artwork, liner notes, and a full album of songs. Getting everyone associated with that production paid is the challenge.

What struck me in the Floyd-authored op-ed piece -- and what prompted me to post it here in the first place -- was the idea that Pandora, at least as the writers would have us believe, is attempting to snow the artists, saying one thing while hoping for another. If Pandora wants to change its royalty structure, it should be upfront about it.
There were plenty of stories back in the day about unscrupulous labels or "managers" or publishing companies (or whatever) getting someone who didn't know any better to sign onto an absolutely terrible deal. When I read this piece, it reminded me of those tales, making me wonder if this might be our era's version of same.
-- Howard

"What struck me in the Floyd-authored op-ed piece -- and what prompted me to post it here in the first place -- was the idea that Pandora, at least as the writers would have us believe, is attempting to snow the artists, saying one thing while hoping for another. If Pandora wants to change its royalty structure, it should be upfront about it."

I would agree with that. Its an op-ed piece though, so no assurance all the facts are related and assessed unbiasedly. I am not familiar with them so dunno. A cleverly disguised campaign for corporate advantage? Plenty of those that go around. Truth usually comes out in the end no matter what. We'll see....