Robert Fripp's Diary

Bredonborough Rising from a very

10.13

Bredonborough.

Rising from a very strange encounter with Tom Jones and Englebert Humperdink. In daily rising life, sometimes strangely called normal life or the real world, I have met Mr. Tom of the Valleys on only one occasion; and Mr. Hump no times at all. Although Giles, Giles & Fripp did have the same engineer – Bill Price  – and used the same studios: Decca in West Hampstead.

Over the road to World HQ I…



II...


… and morning reading…



Now, to dissension.

12.05    A morning of continuing grief and aggravation.

12.23    Newsed by the Sidney Smith…

We Asked Grooveshark What They Pay Artists. And This Is What They Said... Saturday, October 08, 2011
It's one simple question. But getting Grooveshark to answer it was a complicated affair - and ultimately, one that produced a very complicated answer.          

Digital Music News (to Grooveshark SVP Paul Geller):
How much does Grooveshark pay artists, labels, or other rightsholders per on-demand stream? On any song?
[two attempts, no answer]

Attempt 2 @ Digital Music Forum West.
Friday, Q&A session immediately following a presentation by Grooveshark SVP Paul Geller.
Digital Music News (Paul Resnikoff): "Right now Grooveshark has money coming in.  I'm curious to know on a granular basis - on a per on-demand stream basis - what is the rights holder receiving?  What is the artist getting, what is the label getting - per stream, per actual song?"
Geller (from stage): "… I think that Grooveshark is out there trying to be creative about how to infuse the industry with more money in ways that I don't think are commonplace right now."

Digital Music News: "But if I'm an artist coming onto Grooveshark, what should I expect?  What kind of check should I expect if I get - let's say - 100 plays?"  
Geller: "I think there are plenty of independent artists out there that can expect to be paid a good amount of money, if they've gone it alone or gone without a label and they've promoted themselves in a way that is effective and you know - they're big.  So if you're looking for a per-stream rate number..."

Digital Music News: "Yeah, something, some number."

Geller: "Well I can't give you a number because it's really hypothetical.  But I can tell you this, though: moving forward, we're going to be completely transparant about how people are paid.  And you can log in as an artist, you can see how many streams you're getting.  And that artist payment system is going to be completely on-demand, so when we roll out this direct-to-artist payment system, you're not going to need a label.  You don't need a big label to claim your money, that's not what we're trying to do.  This is an open platform where anyone in the world can distribute their music anywhere in the world.  And I think the licensing question is a question - it's complicated.  We're aggressive about licensing and when we go directly to the artist, the artist has complete control.  You have complete control over what you put on Grooveshark and what you don't."

David Singleton, a man that it takes a lot to anger, has been moved to send this in response to Mr. Geller’s e-letter to us of 26th. September 2011…

Dear Paul,
 
I read your recent interview in Digital Music News with interest. With regard to artist’s rights you clearly stated:

“You have complete control over what you put on Grooveshark and what you don’t."

This seems to be at odds with our own experience, where we have NO choice about what we put on Grooveshark. The only choice we are offered is over how much of our time and money we wish to waste in REMOVING items from a service we have never chosen to engage with - a completely different scenario.
 
You will appreciate that there is huge difference between someone inviting a guest into their home (where they have a choice in advance) and someone moving into your home uninvited and then giving you the chance to evict them.  Particularly if that same uninvited guest returns every day until they are evicted again - at your own expense.
 
Have Grooveshark changed their modus operandi, or is your statement to Digital Music News utterly misleading as it quite clearly implies that artists put their music onto Grooveshark and choose what to present?
 
17.35    Preparing lunch for the Minx, who set off at 14.00 for her Toyah Band gig in Southampton. To the gym, and returning to World HQ for more dissension. My own reply to Paul Geller of Grooveshark…

dear mr. geller,

my business partner david singleton has already replied to you today, in respect of your recent half-arsed responses to questions from the Digital Music News...
 
you might scroll down to the comments below...
 
1.      Umm... you're selling cheap looking banner ads against music streams, 95% of which you don't pay rights holders for.
You want to 'infuse the industry with more money'? Shut down your site and let music fans choose one of the services that has a grown up revenue model. Voila! (8oct2011)
 
2.      To me, these companies have a business plan that doesn’t work and never will for artists, labels, etc.  The only thing keeping them alive is venture capital.  But the terrible effect is to make music freely available and of course the key word is ‘freely’… (11oct2011)
 
You are quoted: You have complete control over what you put on Grooveshark and what you don't." Let me re-phrase this for accuracy: We (eg DGM / Panegyric) have no control at all over what you put on Grooveshark.

you write, in your letter to us of september 26th. 2011, that (Grooveshark) are committed to being a positive and constructive force in the music eco-system.

this is an impossibility because Grooveshark is, in its essence, parasitic. you are a start-up that relies upon the work / music of others, for which work the originators are paid nothing, or as little-to-nothing that there is no qualitative difference. hence your answers to DMN being evasive, unclear, obfuscatory and non-informative. even a record company can declare that it will pay, say - 21% on dealer price less deductions. that's not difficult nor complex in principle. you seem to have a great deal of difficulty in saying something, or nothing.

you are doing your best in a position which is, at its core, untenable. you are promoting a start-up that adds nothing to the income streams of artists, while providing income streams for those employed by Grooveshark, and adding nothing to the overall creative / musical life of our culture.

time to own up and move on?

19.51    A good arising: Horacio P has sent me the draft publication of the Guitar Craft Themes, in notation and tablature, from Argentina. This is proper work, good stuff, honest endeavor.

On-lining enough.