The stream is not Swift

As you'll know, Spotify no longer has Taylor Swift: No 1989; no nothing.

People are viewing the yanking of her catalogue through a prism of a Wall Street Journal piece from last year:

"Music is art, and art is important and rare," Swift wrote in the Journal. "Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art."

(Nice fudge there of 'individual artists and their labels' setting album price points; good luck, Iggy Spiggott out of Iggy And The Spiggotts in telling Sony you want your debut record to retail at £17.23.)

But is there another aspect to this story?

Music Ally has an interesting nugget:

Music Ally understands that [Swift's label] Big Machine was even in talks with Spotify at one point to have Swift’s new album ‘1989’ available to stream for premium customers only early in its sales window, but was knocked back by the streaming service.

Streaming is bad, especially when you've had a falling out with the people who run the servers.

Spotify CEO senses stage three is near

Talking to the Wall Street Journal, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek is quite chipper. Music Ally has read the full interview:

“I think a lot of people just look at the financials and say: ‘Oh wow, losses, that’s really, really bad.’ That’s not at all how we see it, we see that we’ve actually now proved our business model,” he says. “The difference between what we pay out in royalties and what we actually take in in revenue is increasing, which is positive.”

There's two things here, surely: if you're still making huge losses (over USD75million in the last twelve months) that might prove your business model, but it would appear to prove your business model doesn't quite work. A bleeding patient is still bleeding, even if not quite bleeding to death.

Secondly: given how unhappy many musicians are with what they see as widdly little royalties , trumpeting that you're taking in cash at a faster rate than you're sharing it out might not be the soothing sound you could me making.

Clear Channel grabs thumbs

So, the mysterious "major media company" who is set to snaffle Thumbplay - the unpopular US subscription service - is revealed: All Things D report Clear Channel Radio are paying not very much to acquire the company.

It sounds like they're less interested in the handful of subscribers, and are instead keen to use the Thumbplay technology to drive their radio business.

The good news is all staff will be kept on; existing subscribers will be able to carry on listening in their dozens but, for now, Clear Channel isn't looking to grow their numbers:

[Bob Pittman, chairman of media and entertainment at Clear] says Thumbplay’s technology will be integrated in the coming months into Clear Channel’s “iheartradio” service, which offers 750 free Web radio stations and boasts 25 million monthly uniques. He says all 65 Thumbplay employees working on music services will get jobs at Clear Channel.

Clear Channel will get into subscriptions “eventually”, Pittman says. Clear Channel says existing Thumbplay subscribers won’t notice any change, but that the company will stop marketing for new customers.

Which also suggests the rest of the world won't really notice any change, either.

Guy Hands: If I can't have EMI, I'll smash it to pieces

As he struggles to try and stop Citi taking EMI from Terra Firma, a document emerges showing that Guy Hands proposed breaking up EMI late last year.

His vision? Split off the bit that makes money (publishing) from the bit that sucks out the cash (records).

Though Citigroup rejected the proposal, Mr. Hands wrote that "we believe that we are in agreement in relation to a number of the key components of an acceptable solution including the need to separate the two businesses."

Mr. Hands's proposal focused on fixing the financial structure of the two divisions, and didn't discuss operational strategies.

"So one of your kidneys is totally broken, our plan is to rip out the good kidney and give that to someone else. That way, at least your good kidney has a chance."

Still, all this interest in the future of the business must make interested parties delighted? Citi and Terra Firma suggesting strategies? Two heads are better than one, right?

Eh, Wall Street Journal?

A filling last week from Terra Firma shows the harm the tug-of-war over the business and the bad publicity surrounding the deal is causing. In an email to Mr. Hands in early October, EMI Music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti wrote that in the first nine months of 2009, counterparties' concerns about EMI's stability caused the company to lose distribution deals that would have gen rated income of $13 million a year. "Not only are artists and artists' managers raising concerns but morale within the company has reached a low point," he wrote.

The guys at the Brits tonight in a sealed plastic tent? That'll be the EMI table.

Michael Jackson didn't sell that many albums

There's a lovely piece by The Wall Street Journal's Numbers Guy, Carl Bialik, which explores the claims for Michael Jackson's albums:

For many years, Mr. Jackson's lifetime sales tally typically was reported at 200 million albums world-wide. But in late 2006, news articles began putting the number at 750 million, a figure that became part of the popular lore as Mr. Jackson was attempting a comeback. In the last few weeks, it has popped up in obituaries and retrospectives.

The truth is, Jacko's album sales are still pretty impressive, but nowhere near that figure:

Lau Ho Hoi, who works for a construction firm in Hong Kong and posts on a popular U.K. online music forum, gained attention on the music blog Hitsville last week for his posts from 2004 compiling Mr. Jackson's sales by country. In an updated analysis, he calculated that the pop star sold 131.5 million albums world-wide, and 65.6 million singles. The total doesn't include digital downloads, which have taken off for Mr. Jackson since his death.

Guillaume Vieira, an engineer in Paris, has compiled his own totals for his Web site, Fan of Music. By his count, Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads.

So: Jackson didn't sell 750 million albums. His memorial wasn't watched by a billion people. And his title King Of Pop was not ratified by every member of the United Nations.

It's not going to stop people printing the legend, though, is it?

SXSW 2008: It's all about the, erm, hairgel commercials

An interesting take on SXSW from the Wall Street Journal. Sure, it's where exciting new bands gather to preen and show off... and then get co-opted to appear on a mobile phone ad:

Over its 22 years, South by Southwest has become the nation's biggest showcase for emerging music talent, speeding the ascent of stars like Amy Winehouse and the Strokes. The festival still plays host to edgy acts, from blistering heavy-metal bands to rock groups with unprintable names, all striving to impress critics, record labels and concert bookers. But increasingly the tone in Austin is being set by a new guard of talent scouts, especially those from industries like television and advertising who can score licensing deals for new music acts.

Yes, yes, we know: bands have got to eat. But it's a little disappointing that SXSW is turning into a barrel where they can be hoovered up like so many fish. It'd be nice to think that bands turn up on advertisements because someone has made an emotional connection between track and product; this is more akin to a ad-track Amsterdam, where bands sit in the windows hoping for passing trade.