They fail to mention how their songs suck balls and probably no one will listen to them... Radiohead is on a different league though, probably gets more "listens" and probably earns the artists more money... I wonder why nobody is talking about the actual payment model so we can judge whether its fair or not...
I noted the Great Gatsby soundtrack was initially offered in full on Spotify but now has only half the tracks... more and more of the songs that I search for are not turning up and I have to try youtube. I don't care what their finance model is or what artists think of their service, but if I can't get access to songs I want to listen to, it directly affects me as a consumer. It might be time for me to cancel the Spotify Premium membership.
"Godrich commented on Spotify's statement, tweeting that because the money is divided up by percentage of total streams, it favors bigger companies with huge back catalogues."
As I understand it, Spotify's system favors companies with the songs people are listening to. If people are listening to the older songs in the back catalog, then the company invested in the right artists. Just because they are older doesn't mean they don't deserve to be paid. Also, (note: I hate to defend large music companies, but I it is what it is) these companies did put a lot of time, money, and effort into creating these catalogs. It wouldn't be fair to the other artist to penalize them just because their song are older, or part of a larger catalog.