I feel like I’m about to be called “old”. I have some Mumford & Sons on my iPod. What? I like them. Sometimes I’m in the mood for that folk-rock sound. They make cool music videos and Marcus Mumford (the frontman) is married to Carey Mulligan, and Carey Mulligan wouldn’t marry someone uncool, would she? No, she would not. Anyway, the Mumford & Sons sat down for an interview with The Daily Beast and they ended up throwing shade right and left. They hate the idea of Jay-Z’s music streaming company Tidal, and they don’t get Taylor Swift’s position either. Some highlights:
Marcus Mumford on Tidal: “We wouldn’t have joined it anyway, even if they had asked. We don’t want to be tribal. I think smaller bands should get paid more for it, too. Bigger bands have other ways of making money, so I don’t think you can complain. A band of our size shouldn’t be complaining. And when they say it’s artist-owned, it’s owned by those rich, wealthy artists.”
Guitarist Winston Marshall: Tidal is for “new school f–king plutocrats…We don’t want to be part of some Tidal ‘streaming revolution’ nor do we want to be Taylor Swift and be anti-it. I don’t understand her argument, either. The focus is slightly missed. Music is changing. It’s f–king changing. This is how people are going to listen to music now—streaming. So diversify as a band. It doesn’t mean selling your songs to adverts. We look at our albums as stand-alone pieces of art, and also as adverts for our live shows.”
Marcus on commercialization: “What I’m not into is the tribalistic aspect of it—people trying to corner bits of the market, and put their face on it. That’s just commercial bullsh-t. We hire people to do that for us rather than having to do that ourselves. We just want to play music, and I don’t want to align myself with Spotify, Beats, Tidal, or whatever. We want people to listen to our music in their most comfortable way, and if they’re not up for paying for it, I don’t really care.”
I think they make some good points, especially that Tidal is for already-rich artists trying to squeeze more money out of their fans. And they’re also right about how the Tidal business model hurts smaller bands or artists just starting out.
For what it’s worth, everyone seems to hate Tidal. Gawker had a good write-up about that a few days ago – go here to read. People think it’s ugly and it doesn’t even work that well. The sound quality isn’t that much better either.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
I agree with him.
OMG I LOVE MUMFORD AND SONS!!
My favorite characters where Lamont and Aunt Esther!
Plus the theme song is so danceable
*sings “wah wah wahhhh wahhh” and falls off stage in drunken stupor*
I love them too, I love folk-rock in general.
And they are so lovely in interviews.
I only read the first line and that totally flew over my head 😀
Gotcha Franca 😉
*hums “I Will Wait”*
http://gopthedailydose.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/fred-sanford-meme-generator-you-big-dummy-9a1a59.jpg
I love Mumford too…..at least they play REAL songs that come from a real place. Of course, I like a variety of music, but can’t rule these guys out. Right now, I use Spotify, probably will never even look at Tidal…..I’m not even a Taylor Swift fan either, so I don’t care if she’s taken her music off….
Saying that Tidal is overrated would be an understatement. It offers nothing that justifies paying 10 or 20 dollars a month for it. The sound quality on Spotify for a free account is better than the sound quality on Tidal for 10 a month. With that said, I’m not sure if I buy Mumford’s anti-commercialization stance. It wouldn’t be farfetched to say that they ditched their folk sound for the sake of becoming more mainstream, thus making more money, but clearly it’s not “hipster” to admit that you want to make money and you care about what people think about you.
To me they were always commercial, just hipster commercial. Saying there isn’t a mainstream branch of hipster is delusional at this point. They are a good band if you like that sound, don’t get me wrong. They obviously do care about what people think about them and their career path but have a pretty good perspective. They acknowledge they are a hugely popular band and are wealthy because of it which goes a long way with me.
ITA with him about tidal. All those people are wealthy I don’t understand why they need more money. I’ll stick with spotify I don’t like any of the music on tidal anyway. Jay z is a sellout.
How much time do you guys give it? (Tidal, obvs)
Good points all around. I usually pay the smaller artists and uh, get the bigger artists stuff from a handy group of my peers. Everyone makes more money in tours than anything still.
Not sure how smaller bands should get paid more. That makes no sense to me. Are they smaller bands because they refuse to advertise? Or because they just aren’t that good? If both i’m sure they’ve made peace with the fact they won’t be wealthy. Or that they actively rebel against commerical routes knowing that would make them money, but not in the way they’d want. And that as long as their music is decent people will want more of it.
I have no bias here. I find their music forgettable and don’t dislike them or their sound. I’m neutral. I think some opinions are heavily effected by their music. Like the music, agree with them.
The rest of this I get. But I won’t give him brownie points for admitting the obvious.
Not sure what you’re saying here F. I was saying I pay for albums from small artists, but might possibly grow a peg leg and don an eye patch to get the rest.
With the streaming services, I don’t think the small artist are getting more than the big ones at all. Music business world wide has an article (titled Lily Allen:Spotify is not the enemy-tidal may boost pirate sites) that says Tidal pays 75% of its revenue back to the artists, thru their record labels. Spotify gives 70%, which also goes thru the labels. Big fat hairy deal. The Gawk. article is worth the read; it’s hilarious. This Tidal thing is a farce IMO. And the lossless audio quality promise is crap. Unless you have a couple thousand dollars worth of sound equipment, which the average listener obviously does not, you can’t tell a difference. So to me, the whole thing is one big farce.
“Everyone makes more money in tours than anything still. ”
Not everyone. Touring can be very expensive, especially if you are playing internationally. If you aren’t a big name, it can be hard to break even.
ok, true. Ticket sales might not be a big source of income, but touring is still the best way to get a fan base that will support you. It is still pretty essential to getting anywhere. Being an online sensation will only get you so far; it can get you started but doesn’t keep you going for too long. At least that’s what my musician friends tell me. I am by no means an expert or even someone trying to make it.
Also not included in this discussion at all are Bandcamp and Soundcloud. If you really want to support smaller artists those 2 are the best way, IMO. Takes a little more effort but if you’re into it it’s really worth it. I’d go to youtube before spotify even. Lots of music playlists and mixes out there if you stay away from the Vevo channels. If you like something, buy from amazon.
@InvaderTak: I suppose it depends on what you mean by “support,” but you should actually be staying away from Soundcloud if you want to support smaller artists. Soundcloud pays zilch to artists and is not monetized.
If you’re talking streaming, then Spotify should be the first place you go to support artists as their payouts are relatively the best of the major players. YouTube is also monetized but at a MUCH, embarrassingly lower rate (until YouTube launches their Music Key subscription service). VEVO actually pays out much better than YouTube if you’re watching on the VEVO website instead of through YouTube, so that would actually be above YouTube. Then Soundcloud is free, so that should be last.
Bandcamp is in a different category and is better than all of these… but the best still is buying albums either at the merch booth or any retailer if you want to see smaller artists get the most direct benefit from your purchase.
Well he isn’t wrong. In fact he couldn’t be more right.
I love this band.
I think people wouldn’t have such a problem with Tidal if it wasn’t more expensive than Spotify.
I think People hated the price, the pompous ridiculous roll out and lastly the grandiose social justice language they used like… the same people that shined for their absence in black causes lately then turning around and invoking SELMA ffs??! nah!
I haven’t seen the roll out, but I read about it. It sounded awful.
Yes, the pompous ridiculous roll out was what really irritated me.
If it was the same idea but to help promote new bands and musicians, open the platform to less known artists it would be really cool because these big names would be there really for ALL the artists and use their power to help others. But no, these people think that because they sell well are like special creatures, better artists after all. They must live in their rich and powerful bubbles and don’t even understand the real world, and if they did, they forgot.
“Popularity is the slutty cousin of prestige” (from Birdman).
I agree with everything he said. Please don’t backtrack or “clarify” your statement, Mr. Mumford.
I agree with him and it’s completely transparent that Tidal is NOT about preserving artistic integrity, but squeezing even more money out of the music loving population to make already successful and over exposed artists even more money. It seems greedy and I hope Tidal fails, which it seems to already be doing.
I have heard many less mainstream and underground musicians say they like spotify and Pandora because it gives them more exposure as artists that they normally wouldn’t get. I can’t tell you how many times I have bought a band’s album on Itunes after hearing them on a streaming service, bands I would have never known about if it weren’t for these streaming services. I loathe Jay-Z, he is just a business man trying to capitalize on something to put more money in his pockets, he does not care about lesser known artists. He is a fraud and I will not support his greedy music ventures.
+1 bazillion
You GO!!!
“I have heard many less mainstream and underground musicians say they like spotify and Pandora because it gives them more exposure as artists that they normally wouldn’t get.”
But they are paying their artists pennies. Literally, pennies. Many music listeners won’t go an buy the music when they can get it for free elsewhere.
Tiffany, most artists don’t make their money off of selling singles and albums, they get paid pennies for every album sold through their labels, they make their real money off of touring. Streaming provides them free exposure and advertising, that’s my whole point and that’s why these lesser known artists support music streaming.
I am very well versed in where the profits come in the music industry. Right now, they are getting screwed on all sides.
Yes, touring CAN be very profitable…but if you are a small band, you can also get screwed while touring. Many venues are now owned by Live Nation, etc. which makes it harder to negotiate. Management gets a cut. There is promo. You have tour managers, tour accountants, guitar techs, insurance, per diems, the cost of renting equipment, hotels for all involved. Sometimes there are hair and make up stylists, costumes and dancers. It gets VERY expensive to put on a tour, which makes it very hard to turn a profit unless they are a VERY well established band. Even moderately big opening acts, regularly on the radio, are barely breaking even. Many times bands tour hoping that they can get more radio play based on doing interviews with radio stations along the way…but a lot of times that doesn’t pan out.
You are forgetting one big aspect music income: radio play. For smaller artists (who write their own music) who can’t get tens of thousands to see them in concert, radio play is a much more direct way to profit.
“most artists don’t make their money off of selling singles and albums, they get paid pennies for every album sold through their labels”
You are forgetting about album advances that factor in as well.
I agree. Tidal sounds like a rip-off by spoiled, greedy celebs to me. And music is changing. Artists will have to make money from playing live, selling merchandise and, yes, selling as adverts. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Plus, I like a bit of folk-y music, so I am also biased.
Having said that, it is MUCH easier for posh boys who come from lots of money – and went to the best schools and all that jazz – to turn up their noses at profit, than it is for people who came from nothing.
I am a sucker for folk-y music too. On the subject of posh Marcus Mumford, have you heard his music that was part of the New Basement Tapes collaboration? I really like it.
Yes! I’m inclined to prefer the more political folk-y stuff better – the Levellers, people like that.
I think people get confused about touring numbers, though. Yes, if you look at the big established artists like the Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, Bon Jovi, they make tons of cash off of touring. But if you look at new lower level artists, they are not making money off of touring. A lot of times they barely break even.
Touring involves crew, hotels, per diems, insurance, rental of equipment (sound, lighting, stage), and taxes in every location…and that is if you don’t have dancers and other “extras” in your show.
I agree with him in general too, especially about Tidal, but I do think it’s easier for them to say “eh, it’s OK if we don’t get paid for streaming plays” because they’re established and profitable (their Gentleman of the Road tour is coming to my area, but tickets start around $200 to bring my own chair and sit on the beach). It has to be really tough for smaller acts who just get pennies from streaming.
I couldn’t agree with him more. I really do sympatize with less known artists, who have to struggle, even though they are often way more talented than some of those overproduced, factory made musical A-listers but Tidal won’t change it. I got shouted at last time for saying that Tidal was made out of greed but I stand by it. The only people who will benefit from it are those, who don’t need it. It’s founded by the musical elite for musical elite. Right now Spotify is a better solution from listeners’ point of view but I wish someone would come up with something that will benefit both struggling artists and their fans.
P.S. If we are being completely honest, Kaiser, I also like the old, folky Mumford and Sons and I don’t know why it’s considered shameful.
”musical elite for musical elite”
THIS! Because someone like Swifty doesn’t make enough money off of, Shake it Off… already, not to mention how much play that song gets. Her greed and all these other thirsty elite artists is gross.
I occasionally download songs from iTunes for my workout playlists, but for the most part, I still buy CDs. I like to own my music and not just rent it, which is why I kind of get Taylor Swift’s stance. There is no way I would pay 10 dollars a month for some crappy streaming service when I can buy at least 2 new cds from Amazon for that price.
I didn’t know CD’s are this much cheaper in the USA. In my part of Europe, we don’t have iTunes and CD’s are so expensive that paying a monthly premium Spotify account costs me a half of what an album would cost (and it is much higher than in the USA because of the currency exchange rate). Two years ago I wanted to buy a new Calexico album for my friend but It would cost me around 10% of what I earned in my full-time job that month so I had to pass. Without Spotify I’d have to rely on commercial radio stations (or pirating) and they suck.
I like to own and still buy music too, mostly itunes, occasionally CDs. Albums generally seem to be $7-10, sometimes less. I’ve recently bought 2 CDs from lesser known artists who self-released their latest album through crowdfunding. If I can pay them directly, I like that.
I do listen to Pandora a lot at work though, and have bought a number of songs after hearing them streaming.
Whaaat? Honestly I’ve never appreciated M&S because where I come from folk-rock is old hat (I’m looking at you Rawlins Cross “Reel ’n Roll”!) and I prefer my folk a bit more unapologetically folk-y. Until today, I never understood how Laura Marling and Marcus Mumford were ever a thing. These comments make that pairing a bit more understandable.
I love M&S and I do agree with their arguments against Tidal. I pay a premium account on Spotify but that doesn’t mean I don’t “buy” music – I’m more selective about bands/artists I’ll spend my money on. I preordered M&S’s new record as soon as I could and I still listen to them on Spotify, through their CD’s and even Vinyl (yes, I buy LP’s LOL).
I will not “buy” Rihanna’s latest single even if I enjoy it on the radio or sometimes on Spotify, because I know I will only listen to it short term. We all have those bands we came back to all the time.
Tidal will most likely become a niche for those willing to pay so much money, especially if they brand Tidal as an “edgy, cool, innovative, intuitive, musically-on point” load of sh!t, and it will survive or die a slow death.
I hate their music, it’s like folky cold play.
That said, I agree with them 100%
It’s not my kinda music either, but there is something about that Marcus, I’m tellin’ ya! 😍
its not even about streaming, Jay Z simply wants Apple to buy it from him and they probably will. he is going to make a lot of money with that.
I love, love, love when people with actual talent throw shade on those that do not.
I only came here to ask what happened to Carey Mulligan? She was the it girl and then she got married and I swear she disappeared from the face of the earth.