I pay a distributor (distrokid) to send out music, and do not have a direct agreement with Spotify. As far as I'm concerned, monetizing my music without my consent is theft.
Their argument is that the stream amount is so low it ends up not being worth the transaction. On a moral level, I'd argue that it's their responsibility to pay out the money generated even if it costs them money to do so for a small number of streams.
This is estimated to generate $40m annually for them (which they've said they will be distributing to other artists instead), which isn't deeply significant, but this is money that is only generated because of small content creators that have uploaded their content to their distributor (which they pay for) which then distributes to spotify.
If I were to upload directly to Spotify for free, I'd consider the terms different, because I'd expect distribution as the exchange in the relationship. But in this case I pay a distributor, who then sends to spotify, who then decides to offer my content for free and pocket the money. Not acceptable for me.
(note: I consider this relevant to the original article because it is mentioned, as well as because it is one of the variables involved in music purchasing/accessing)
edit: corrected the $40m statement to show where money was going.
I think it's likely they kept this number very low specifically to keep people arguing about whether or not the amount was important, versus if it was OK to be doing in the first place.
And pointing how low the royalties are is not a valid argument for not paying artists anything!
When streaming became an option, music distribution platforms that appeal to a lower barrier of entry became more popular.
If the industry were refreshed today, it would make more sense to directly upload content directly to the streaming platform, like Apple Music or Spotify, just like we do with social networks.
Unfortunately, this put Spotify in a weird position because while they are a distributor, they are a secondary distributor. Unlike YouTube, or other platforms that directly host the content. (yes, I know they're hosting the audio files, but they are still secondary, because distro kid is primary).
Again, I pay for distro kid, everyone who uploads music to platforms, pays their distributor. So unfortunately, it's more complex than monetization and ownership rates around content on YouTube or something like that.
spotify is distributing without paying the artists
That's precisely what he's going to do. Did you read the comment?
> This comment is so entitled and pathetic.
Ironic.
My music consumption goes something like this:
1) Queue up a known band on Spotify. See what else similar to them Spotify puts into a playlist
2) Listen to the new music, decide what I like or don't like
3) Head over to Bandcamp or Discogs with the stuff I really like. Buy it in vinyl and DRM-free digital. Put it in my Subsonic server.
4) If it's not available, head to P2P app of choice - they always have it.
Yes, Bandcamp and Spotify might be ephemeral, but Spotify did wonders for discoverability - there are a lot of albums from tiny tiny bands I'd never have bought if it weren't for Spotify, and Bandcamp helped re-establish the market for physical, DRM-free media.
Music has never been in a better place. I finally get to have my cake and eat it too. What people are complaining about (Spotify not paying enough to smaller artists) is conveniently ignoring that I'd have never even heard of those artists 25 years ago, because they couldn't have paid for distribution. Spotify didn't reduce what artists make, they redisributed what I spend across way more, but smaller, bands.
I have to agree. I’m 66 years old. When I was in my late teens, I was intensely into music and doing my best to explore and learn about a variety of genres.
It was hard. I couldn’t afford to buy many albums, the music played on the radio was limited, and the only way to hear obscure music that I had read about was to go to a large public or university library and hope that they might have the records in their collection.
Now I can listen to nearly any music I want to with just a few clicks. There are also many great streaming channels for discovering music I didn’t know about—I particularly like BBC Sounds, especially Radio 3. My 19-year-old self never could have dreamt of such riches.
https://davestrickson.blogspot.com/2020/05/john-peel-session...
Musicians are largely struggling while a few giant corps take all the money. Thats not a good place at all.
I think you are conflating “music” with “music consumers”
>I think you are conflating “music” with “music consumers”
I think you somehow missed the very first sentence of my comment:
>Music consumption has basically never been in a better place.
But that’s the way it has always been.
We shouldn't be complacent and let Spotify make earning a living even harder for artists.
I don't understand how enabling access to music from anywhere in the world has made earning a living harder to music artists, the industry was always extremely hard outside of a few lucky ones hand picked by labels to be marketed. The local scenes were (and still are) where most artists could grow their audience, sell albums and merch, it's still the same hard work but now you are able to release your music worldwide in an instant.
Streaming doesn't pay enough on any platform to enable earning a living if you are a small act. And it never will, it's basic economics, there's not enough money from subscriptions and ads to support the millions and millions of artists.
Support the artists, that's orthogonal to Spotify or other streaming services. Buy their albums, merch, go watch their shows.
I cannot recall the details now, but this has happened at least 3 times over the last couple of months.
This is driving people towards piracy again.
0: "Let me just open spotify to listen to.. NO, I don't want last year's recap... NO, I don't want to follow my friend's playlist.. NO, I don't want to try browsing your recommended audiobooks.. OK, now that those popups are gone, what was I .. Ah yes! This song, here it is. Play. .... No? Play. It's not playing. Maybe close and reopen the app?" <-- this happens often. Spotify Premium, the app that consistently fails at the literal one thing it's supposed to do, play music.
But then, I hear about things like Bandcamp being sold, artists being pulled from streaming sites, etc., and it feels nice to know that in principle, all the songs I've purchased over the decades remain within my power to listen to.
Some of the songs I have, and still regularly listen to, I'm honestly not sure if I could find anywhere online anymore.
So far I’ve been trying Apple Music, and have liked it so far. I’ve tried in the past but didn’t stick around long enough to learn how to use it.
Also, I have HomePods as speakers for my living room tv and found that “streaming” to them using Apple Music isn’t streaming, it sends the channel over to the device so you can do whatever on your phone or leave the house and it still plays. Much like Sonos.
Am I confused here? I've personally never seen popup ads in (paid) Spotify, either on mobile or desktop.
Alternative: "For now, I’m just back to the weird p2p programs where I can try to find the music I bought or the ones that are just impossible to get."
Result: "listening to music feels more meaningful, not a thing that happens in the background"
Is there really a lot of music neither available on CD, nor for MP3 download, but on vinyl?
Unless you mean FLAC or something, CD is still higher quality than other formats, and they keep longer than vinyl or cassettes.
Inb4 the "only audiophiles with high end equipment" arguments: if you were around in the days of Blade Encoder tweaking options and trying to fit mp3s onto a 32MB player the size of a cigarette box, you know what digital artifacts sound like.
I’m spending more time listening to the music I love and the massive collection I already owned from back in the day. There’s something about not having unlimited access that helps me appreciate what I do have to a greater degree.
And sometimes if you clicked it, nothing would happen
https://github.com/kristopolous/music-explorer/
This is a problem I've been working on since 2007(!) and this is approach #4, started in 2020
If you only listen to music you already know you like, then sure Bandcamp or whatever is amazing for the artist.
But personally, I just launch my "liked" playlist and use their enrich feature to fill in titles. Or use their thematic playlist generations that use a genre but take into account what I already liked of this genre.
Though if someone showed me an alternative with discovery features that work as good as this and pays artists decently I'd switch instantly.
Their very good recommendation algorithm can expand your horizon and you can buy the music you really like while using the same playback experience (would be nice if they allowed you to buy and download music directly though).
Using which funds? Afaik they pay out quite a lot of the income, they could try to cut costs (the most meaningful thing there probably being to lay off staff) in order to maximize payouts but the only alternative pushes people to competing services that are cheaper and can't pay artists better for the same reason.
One thing they could reasonably do is to offer for people to pay more for their Spotify subscription, where the surplus (anything you pay above the base subscription) goes 100% to the artists, proportionally to the ones you listen to. One can speculate how much that would help the problem. I just find it weird to see people always saying (look up any Spotify-related thread) that Spotify pays so poorly and that people should cancel their subscription altogether instead.
Edit: got curious and looked it up
> within the pie chart detailing the total revenue that Spotify generates through music streaming, “roughly 70% of it is going to rights holders ---https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2021-...
At this moment shows I used to watch are removed from all the platforms too, leaving me the only option to "buy" them on Amazon. "Buy" because they will still be in a cloud, and one harsh blow of the wind can make the cloud gone. The wind of changes I mean.
I find it to be socially toxic that anyone expects massive companies to tailor their content to one's narrow sensibilities. Furthermore, the complaints rarely if ever go the other way in terms of platforming middle-of-the road personalities that land on the other side of the line. Though, they could in-volume. Man, was it terrrrible when the Smartless crew had Rachel Maddow on their show. Grumble grumble...unsubscribe...grumble
Spotify spending USD$100-$200 million on, say, that particular angertainment professional got a lot of people riled up because a) he's actively, demonstrably harmful, b) they had zero interest in patronising him, let along listening to him, but mostly c) their subscription costs had gone up to cover this indefensible payment.
Like TFA, I get my podcasts elsewhere, partly because the spotify app is unwieldy for music, but just plain user hostile for podcasts - but I'd appreciate a multi-tiered service offering from Spotify where I don't use, and therefore don't pay for, any podcast content from them.
Similar to the different package options for TV services, where live sports were expensive but you could opt out of them.
No it didn’t. It got a tiny minority of a certain insignificant type upset. Step out into the real world and the number one podcast is, by definition, well received.
I’m also glad to be on an app that doesn’t try to constantly push podcasts on me.
But they pay little to the artists.
What do you use?
Like many home/IoT services, Spotify uses mDNS to enumerate and announce its peers when they are L3 local but they are also controllable remotely by dialing-home to their API albeit with a slightly longer delay. Spotify is hilarious when playing from the Everywhere group (all devices) where desktops, tablets, phones, the thermostat, stereo receiver, and Amazon Echo devices all insist on playing out of time like a crowd of teenagers singing a song.
I don't know how recent the feature is, but I recently stumbled upon YouTube Music's parameter-driven personal channel feature "Your music tuner." One of the parameters is how much music outside your favorites it will find for you. That works really well in my limited experience.
Another example: Pluto TV (run by Paramount) hosts as much hate as AM radio in the form of OAN, Blaze, Newsmax, and (previously) RT America, OTOH they have Scripps, Cheddar, and Sky News.
Moral purity is the privilege of extremists appeasing their tribe through conformity to closed-mindedness and foot-stomping that they must live in a voluntary intellectual and reality apartheid. The American right and left are both guilty of this, perpetuating a division that was artificially introduced for profit reasons by grifters and widened by different flavors of mass media that promote these spheres of influence.
I've seen claims that they pay artists better than anyone else besides Tidal, but I've seen no official statements.
Big gateway keepers will always be full od questionable people.
Politics is also full od questionable people should we not participate in it?
https://github.com/jwallet/spy-spotify
Offline library slowly growing.
Spotify, 2023.
