Unfortunately, this “Rolling Stone” article is behind a paywall. But the issue is bigger than that. Today everybody knows more information, some inaccurate, but there is no single outlet that everybody reads, everybody pays attention to.

Used to be “Rolling Stone.” Actually, there was a flourishing rock press in the pre-internet era. And despite all the hype about fanzines, they had a limited audience and it was the big publications that had reach: “Rolling Stone,” “Spin,” “Bender”… But now there is not one authoritative music information source. And this isn’t only in music, but in every vertical. Used to be your story was in the newspaper and you reached everyone in the market, many had subscriptions and those who didn’t got the information from the verbal scuttlebutt, after all, there wasn’t a whole hell of a lot more to talk about, there was no internet, talking and arguing about music was a big deal. Now it’s a much smaller deal. Social media has usurped the conversation and the delineation between artist and fan is no longer clear, the fan wants to be the artist, and can be on social media. And although artists are gods to some, they are the source of derision to others. That’s what the internet has done, pulled the artists off their pedestals, they’re seen as little better than you and me. Except for their devotees who police the behavior of the rest of the population, looking for negative feedback, the diss, and when they see it they bombard the perpetrator to the point where their inbox or Twitter feed is overwhelmed and nearly indecipherable, it becomes impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff.

All of which means if you’re promoting your act, there’s no single outlet that will reach everybody. As a matter of fact, there’s no single outlet that will reach a modicum of people. Late night TV has abysmal ratings, music comes on last and it’s all about creating viral content for the web, which is not the music, but comedy. Local newspapers have been on the decline in excess of a decade. The remaining majors, the “Times,” “WaPo” and “WSJ,” have seen their subscription numbers rise as a result of low-priced digital accessibility, and all of them cover music, in some cases quite well, but the target audience usually doesn’t read them, and since they’re smorgasbords of information, the market doesn’t take them seriously. It’s like ordering the burger at a Greek joint. Or spaghetti at the steak place. Beware.

And even when information is widely disseminated, there is no consensus. Today you believe what you want to believe, and find information confirming your bias.

All of which to say is most publicity on Spotify is that the corporation is evil and is screwing independent artists, those on the way up.

Well, David Macias runs Thirty Tigers, a label services company for independent artists, so it’s fascinating to read what he has to say. It’s outweighed by the contrary in every publication known to man, but it’s the truth.

And here it is:

“‘Vilification Is Easy’: Spotify Isn’t the Culprit, Says Head of Indie Label Thirty Tigers – The streaming giant isn’t perfect, says David Macias — but blaming them for the state of the music economy is too reductive”

“…David Macias, the owner and co-founder of the Nashville-based label-services company Thirty Tigers, has been frustrated by what he sees as a lopsided conversation scapegoating Spotify as the lone nefarious corporate giant in the music industry. From Macias’ vantage point — as the head of an independent music company that has succeeded during the streaming era — the conversation around royalty payments and streaming is much more nuanced. He spoke with Rolling Stone about the payout structures at his company and how Spotify has benefitted his roster of artists over the years:

On the whole, at Thirty Tigers the general rule of thumb is that our artists earn 75 percent of the gross. We split the remaining 25 percent with the Orchard, who is our distributor. Last year, year we did $36 million in sales, and the 10 to 12 percent of that that we keep is how we pay our staff of 27 people. We go out there and act as a label would on behalf of an artist, but we allow the artists to keep ownership of their work. The artists are their own labels. We are their loving back-end staff.

Any expense or advance comes out of the 75 percent that the artist earns, but because they are their own label, there are lots of ancillary revenues that can flow to artists — merch on the road, film or TV placement — that goes directly to them. 

It’s become more difficult to earn a living as an artist. Anyone trying has my deep respect. If an artist streams a million times, they should get about $4,000. And even though it seems like a million streams is a ton, last month, 45 of our roughly 100 artists streamed a million times on all streaming platforms, some considerably more than that. 

So, it pains me when I see artists and those who love them misdiagnose the source of their difficulty. Spotify is the current scapegoat for the ills of the working-class artist, despite them paying 63 percent of gross revenues back out to rights holders.

Democratization has been a huge boon to independent artists in that it has given more artists a chance, but it has not been enough to earn them a living wage. The pie is being sliced so thin that most artists are left hungry. In 2021, 60,000 songs were being uploaded to Spotify every day.

So how then can artists make enough money to survive? There are options for a patronage model like Patreon that can operate outside the revenue models of pre-recorded music. But what I do not want to see happen is that artists misattribute the source of their problem and undermine the DSPs that have played a huge role in the democratization of independent music.

Is Spotify perfect? Far from it. I won’t touch the Joe Rogan issue. That’s a matter of conscience for artists and their advocates. Do I wish that Spotify were not joining other DSPs in appealing the Copyright Royalty Board’s ruling that pays the publishers and songwriters 15 percent of revenues? Absolutely. When artists I work with have walked into their NYC offices, as often as not, I hear about the opulence of their offices and the perks that are made available to their employees on full display.

A painful question must be asked at this point: Is it an artist’s right to earn a living from their art in a capitalist market? In a country where the business-failure rate is 65 percent over ten years, should artists be immune from their businesses failing? As much as my heart goes out to anyone who is not able to make their dream come true, I would say that that answer is no.

Vilification is easy. I’ve heard that it’s not the people, it’s the system that is broken. To that, I counter that any system that has increased parity and overall revenues is not a broken system. There is just way, way, way more music available, and though the pie is growing, it’s unable to feed everyone. Artists need to understand the reality of the situation and be clear-eyed about what battles they need to be fighting. My contention is that dismantling the existing system without a replacement will harm independent artists.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/spotify-streams-payouts-joe-rogan-1298101/

Unless you subscribe, that link will only show you a few lines of the story.

“Rolling Stone” has some of the best coverage of music news, and most of it sits behind the paywall. But it is all accessible with an Apple News+ subscription for ten bucks a month, which every Mac and/or iPhone owner should pay for. It’s bupkes, $120 a year for not only “Rolling Stone,” but the near worthless “Billboard” whose stories are too often consumer facing, as well as some of the aforementioned WaPo and WSJ and much more. Best to go to the source as opposed to reading it on social media.

Scott Rodger manages Paul McCartney, Shania Twain, Andrea Bocelli and more. You’re gonna want to listen to this!

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/scott-rodger/id1316200737?i=1000550666206

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ff4fb19-54d4-41ae-ae7a-8a6f8d3dafa8/episodes/30c89996-7ede-4465-b732-4e2adf6ae084/the-bob-lefsetz-podcast-scott-rodger

https://listen.stitcher.com/yvap/?af_dp=stitcher://episode/90376178&af_web_dp=https://www.stitcher.com/episode/90376178

Re: More Mikaela

Bob,  that’s an excellent and very understandable analysis of the conditions and the evolution of alpine technical racing.

Having spent a fair amount of time in the Chinese ski resorts in the same general region that these events are being held, I can confirm the snow is very different.

It can be fun, but it’s very aggressive and takes a shift in mindset and expectations.  When coaching there, shifting the expectation of feel and adapting has been the first thing I’ve worked on.

Younger American athletes, especially from the west, have to shift in a similar manner when first competing in Europe. However, to a lesser degree.

Jonathan Ballou

Managing Director

Ski and Snowboard School

Aspen Skiing Company

__________________________________

From: Kara Hoisington

Subject: Re: Mikaela Falls

Yes, yes, all of this. I was an alpine racer for 20+ years growing up with my Dad as a coach at CVA during Bode’s day there and myself a coach at Whiteface when Mikaela was at Burke.

One of the hardest things about Mikaela’s talent is that she makes the impossible look so easy. Her natural feel for the snow and hard work is unimaginable to people in the sport. With Bode and Lindsey you could SEE the fight. The hard grunt out of the start gate, the barely holding on and then saving it. But with Mikaela, it all just glides.

I think this is why America finds it so hard to understand when she is human.

__________________________________

From: Michael Kurtz

Subject: Re: Curation, Not Censorship

I was sitting in a Montana poker game and struck up a conversation with an older gentlemen wearing a red “Hell yeah we’re pissed” cap. He wanted to know where my family was from and I said Germany. Without missing a beat he said, “I like Germans, they are good people. I was talking with a friend of mine whose family is from Germany and he told me “We may not have got the Jews the last time, but we’ll get ’em next time.” I swallowed and said, “Um, my wife is Jewish.” He just looked blankly at me.

__________________________________

From: Hugo Burnham

Subject: Re: India.Arie And Joe Rogan

The only people whining about you writing about politics – the “Stay in your lane, Old Man!”-ers are the ones whose ignorance and selfishness you expose. Probably more of the latter, I’d guess.  True Reactionaries, who are being made to feel uncomfortable, who keep staring at the same old spot for their missing cheese. Self-imposed hunger.

Pretty simple.

It’s the manmade snow.

Slalom racing used to be completely different, then again, so were the Olympics. The Olympics used to be held in winter burgs with nearby mountains with natural snow. They even used to be held in mountain towns, like St. Moritz, or Squaw Valley, even Lake Placid. Now the winter Olympics are held in the metropolis, to maximize dollars. The venues are almost secondary. It all comes down to money. And the country with the most money gets the games, and if there’s any doubt, any difference, any question, that’s where corruption comes in. The Olympics are no better than the Golden Globes. Pierce the surface of the telecast and you will not like what you see.

So, nobody wants the winter games anymore. Because they’re too damn expensive. So that’s how we end up with the games in Beijing, Xi believes the money spent is worth it, showing the advancement of China. As for Sochi… Since Putin is a kleptocrat, he gave the contracts to his buddies and even made money personally from the spend. And when the games were over he invaded Ukraine. As for the Sochi games… Sochi is a seaside resort. There are mountains, but the sun and temperature are intense, and what you want in ski racing is consistency, so the snow warmed up and later racers were penalized in Sochi, because the wetter snow is slower, and in Beijing…

There’s essentially no snow at all. Depending upon reports, where the races are held they get somewhere between two and eight inches a year, so you’ve got to install the guns and make the snow yourself.

Now slalom used to be a game of going around the poles, i.e. gates. But with the advent of shaped-skis and breakaway gates, you now go through the gates as opposed to around them.

Yes, in the late nineties the skis changed. And it was the racers who cottoned to the new shaped skis last. But those who were there first, like Bode Miller and Deborah Compagnoni, ate up the field and then everybody switched… To much shorter skis that you only had to lay on edge and they carved.

As for the breakaway gates… At first the gates were made out of bamboo. Then they went to plastic, and when you hit them, it hurt. But when skiers hit traditional gates they frequently popped out of the snow. And then the race had to be stopped while the pole was replaced, and this happened over and over again. So someone came up with the idea of breakaway gates. They’re still made of plastic, but there is a hinge at snow level, so when you hit the pole it bends, maybe even all the way down to the snow surface, and then pops back up, ready for the next racer

So the game changed. Now you donned your short shaped skis, which carved on a dime, put on your armor and then went as straight as you could, right into the gates.

As for the surface itself…

In the old days there used to be ruts. The initial skiers down the course had an advantage, the surface was smooth, yet it quickly got torn up. But, if they could make the course firm, it would be the same for everybody, much more fair. And you have to make it a bit fair for those at the bottom, otherwise they can never get good results and move up the ladder. And the solution to the rut problem was turning the surface into ice.

Which every recreational skier hates!

But the racers love it. Because it’s consistent.

And to ensure there is ice, before the race they inject water into the course the night before, so it will freeze into ice, I kid you not.

Now making snow is an art. And don’t confuse the manmade snow in Beijing with that on your local hill. The local hill always makes snow with a high water content, to make a firm base. They want a layer to cover the ground and stay there. And for decades, manmade snow was known for its iciness. But then with new equipment and greater insight they were able to make snow closer to the real thing.

So what happened in Beijing is they laid down high water content snow, for a base, but the top surface…they tried to replicate something closer to powder. So what you end up with is a firm surface with some kickaround dust that’s akin to sand on top of it.

And underneath this dust is not conventional ice. It’s rock hard, but it doesn’t resemble what comes out of your freezer whatsoever. It’s like highly compressed sand. It’s firm, but the surface is different from natural snow.

So let’s say you’re a world class skier, a champion, and you want to win in the Olympics. You study the course, but if you’re doing it right, you’re skiing on feel. The more you inject your mind into the equation, the worse, the slower you ski.

Now a great slalom skier can set an edge and actually accelerate out of a turn. And a great World Cup slalom skier believes the surface surrounding the gate will be ice. That’s right, like you have in your drink. You may not be able to ski on it, but their boards are tuned to an incredible sharpness at a higher angle than recreational skis and the athletes are in unbelievable shape, and so when you set your edge… It’s essentially the same the entire winter. But in Beijing…

The greats have been faltering. Not only Shiffrin, but her boyfriend Kilde and her direct competitor Vlhova.

So Shiffrin pushes out of the gate, she gets into her groove, and sets her edge and… She feels this layer of sand on top. And underneath this is the brick hard compressed snow that is much harder to get an edge in than ice. So, you don’t get instant grip, so you set your edge harder, and you bungle, what happens is not what you expected, your edge gets caught, or your ski slides and…you’re out of the course.

But it gets even worse. Because the temperatures at the courses have been so damn low, hovering near zero, all the moisture that does exist in the snow has been wiped out, pulled out of the snow and is now gone. Try skiing on a bitter cold day, oftentimes your skis will barely move, because all the moisture has been sucked out of the snow, and the ski needs to heat up the snow underneath it to create a wet layer to slide ahead.

So, Mikaela Shiffrin feels the pressure, she’s got to win. And she’s got confidence in herself, she can ski these courses in her sleep, and she never skis out. But she’s running on instinct, setting an edge, and it just doesn’t feel like it normally does. Do you employ a lighter touch or a heavier one? Heavier ones usually slow you down, but if it’s steep enough and you’re good enough you can set an edge and accelerate. But your ski must hold the line exactly, never waver, which is very hard to do in the snow in Beijing.

Shiffrin is not the only skier having this problem. Her boyfriend Kilde, dominant in the downhill on the World Cup, got aggressive and set his edge and lost fractions of a second which left him out of the medals.

Same deal with Vlhova, Shiffrin’s rival. She was way back in the giant slalom, and as I write this way off pace in the first run of the slalom.

But doesn’t everybody ski on the same surface?

Yes, but there’s less pressure on the non-stars. They can relax more, to their advantage. Whereas the stars, especially Shiffrin in the slalom, have to ski to win! They can’t let their foot off the gas. And in this aggressive pose, they set their skis into this junk…

I mean it doesn’t even feel like regular snow. Like I said, the top is like sand, small grains floating around. And underneath this is the same substance, just compressed so hard that there’s almost no give. Whereas if it’s ice, the edge comes in and melts the ice ever so minimally and you hold your carve, the ski doesn’t slip, and you’re on your way.

What next, winter Olympics in Miami?

This has gone too far.

P.S. Petra Vlhova won the gold medal in the slalom. Like I said above, she was far behind in the first run, in eighth place, .72 seconds off the pace, but the truth is Vlhova and Shiffrin can make up as much as 1.5 seconds in the second run, they’re just that good. And on the second run, the start order is reversed. Slower skiers first, fastest skiers last, and there are thirty of them. And with absolutely nothing to lose, Vlhova threw down a blistering second run. To go into first position. With seven skiers left. And this is very tough psychologically for the remaining skiers. Vlhova is the best on the circuit, even better than Shiffrin this year, and if she threw down such a great run…to win, they had to lay down a blistering one too. Talk about pressure. No one could.