4 ms·

Spotify is shit for artists. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

by EC1 11y ago

6stringmerc 11y ago
I'm not a liar when I say Spotify has expanded my global listener base beyond any other service I've used in the past. Through DistroKid, I can actually examine where, when, and how my music gets to listeners. That includes country of origin. Yes, the prospect of worthwhile income is shit, but it always has been whether on the radio or signing over a license just "for exposure." Or, yeah, Spotify is shit for people who signed a shit contract with a shit label who doesn't do shit for their artists other than point the finger elsewhere. I'll give you that. So I guess this is a matter of perspective, because I'm not a liar and I don't think it's shit for artists.
- EC1 11y ago
  It's not a matter of perspective. The numbers you would need to be pulling on Spotify are huge to sustain yourself on a decent level. By that point, you're already big enough where you wouldn't need Spotify's income because you're big enough to have other sources.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Okay, I'll give you one more response after you "moved the goalposts" so quickly: The only perspective that Spotify or iTunes is an avenue to make a living is straight up delusional. Getting a hit song on the radio, on iTunes, or Spotify is about opening up opportunities where there is a demand for the commodity - the music - and gives the artist a better bargaining position. Making a living in music is about having other sources as a fundamental rule of the industry. One good contract for a license to a commercial on broadcast television likely would dwarf the income one would receive from an entire year of streaming income. Selling t-shirts will make more than streaming income. I've made more money busking with an acoustic guitar on a busy corner in 2 hours than I've made from streaming. This is how I use Spotify - it's a street corner that pays in pennies. However, I can't afford to travel the world to get in front of people. Thus, while it's very close to the "exposure" concept of compensation, at least there's an exchange of monies as a matter of principle.
    - EC1 11y ago
      Yes we are agreeing with one another here. I was strictly talking about sustainability.
      - 6stringmerc 11y ago
        Nah, I think sustainability is a non-sequitur when talking about recorded material, whether physical, digital, or streaming revenue. Would I like for it to be different? Sure! But going back to the Bards who had to go from town to town, singing their songs for food and shelter, it's unreasonable to expect the synthetic protection of copyright to put more than peanuts on the table. It's either make something, embrace the income potential, and keep creating, or whine with whisky an die in the gutter, figuratively speaking.
        username223 11y ago
        How much is Spotify even helping in this case? Is the "exposure" worth more than what you could get as a minstrel or a court bard?
        6stringmerc 11y ago
        Until one can identify the markets for which there may be demand, e.g. foreign countries out of reach otherwise, then being a minstrel or court bard means being anchored to one location. Look, my perspective is that music is supposed to be made for two reasons: 1. the personal compulsion to create something that reflects the individual, and 2. sharing those products with a limited expectation of fiscal reward. This is not to downplay the desire to make a living from art, but an informed historical perspective doesn't infer that technology and modern business has changed the nature of the relationship between artists and consumers very much.
    - SyneRyder 11y ago
      As a music purchaser who doesn't torrent music, I like that Spotify lets me try new music in a convenient & legal way. It's a step in the purchasing process, not the final destination. There's a German metal/rock band called Unheilig that I heard about in 2013. After seeing a YouTube clip [1], Spotify / Rdio let me try more of their songs & add them to my playlists. That hooked me enough to add the album to my Spotify offline downloads so I can listen on the train. At that point, I'm a committed fan who doesn't want to lose the album... so that's when I buy the CD. Two years later, I've bought all their albums, 2 limited Super Deluxe editions, t-shirts & hats & merch, and been to two of their concerts. Unheilig probably got nearly nothing from me via Spotify, but it was an important step in getting me hooked & ultimately spending hundreds of dollars. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl-mvbxAf-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl-mvbxAf-k
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    You know, artists have to pay radio for the exposure. Spotify gets them the same thing, not only for free, but paying the artists.
joosters 11y ago
I thought that their rates are comparable to radio stations (in countries where radio music is licensed, e.g. UK) The rate per listener is tiny, but there are lots of listeners.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  You're not wrong from what I understand of the U.S. system - it's a constant point of contention between labels and the streaming industry regarding how much is paid out. For radio airplay in the U.S., the songwriter gets paid while the performer does not. It's a convoluted system definitely measured in cents, not dollars.

Spotify is shit for artists. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

by EC1 11y ago

Spotify is shit for artists. Anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

I'm not a liar when I say Spotify has expanded my global listener base beyond any other service I've used in the past. Through DistroKid, I can actually examine where, when, and how my music gets to listeners. That includes country of origin. Yes, the prospect of worthwhile income is shit, but it always has been whether on the radio or signing over a license just "for exposure." Or, yeah, Spotify is shit for people who signed a shit contract with a shit label who doesn't do shit for their artists other than point the finger elsewhere. I'll give you that. So I guess this is a matter of perspective, because I'm not a liar and I don't think it's shit for artists.

EC1 11y ago
It's not a matter of perspective. The numbers you would need to be pulling on Spotify are huge to sustain yourself on a decent level. By that point, you're already big enough where you wouldn't need Spotify's income because you're big enough to have other sources.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Okay, I'll give you one more response after you "moved the goalposts" so quickly: The only perspective that Spotify or iTunes is an avenue to make a living is straight up delusional. Getting a hit song on the radio, on iTunes, or Spotify is about opening up opportunities where there is a demand for the commodity - the music - and gives the artist a better bargaining position. Making a living in music is about having other sources as a fundamental rule of the industry. One good contract for a license to a commercial on broadcast television likely would dwarf the income one would receive from an entire year of streaming income. Selling t-shirts will make more than streaming income. I've made more money busking with an acoustic guitar on a busy corner in 2 hours than I've made from streaming. This is how I use Spotify - it's a street corner that pays in pennies. However, I can't afford to travel the world to get in front of people. Thus, while it's very close to the "exposure" concept of compensation, at least there's an exchange of monies as a matter of principle.
  - EC1 11y ago
    Yes we are agreeing with one another here. I was strictly talking about sustainability.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Nah, I think sustainability is a non-sequitur when talking about recorded material, whether physical, digital, or streaming revenue. Would I like for it to be different? Sure! But going back to the Bards who had to go from town to town, singing their songs for food and shelter, it's unreasonable to expect the synthetic protection of copyright to put more than peanuts on the table. It's either make something, embrace the income potential, and keep creating, or whine with whisky an die in the gutter, figuratively speaking.
      - username223 11y ago
        How much is Spotify even helping in this case? Is the "exposure" worth more than what you could get as a minstrel or a court bard?
        6stringmerc 11y ago
        Until one can identify the markets for which there may be demand, e.g. foreign countries out of reach otherwise, then being a minstrel or court bard means being anchored to one location. Look, my perspective is that music is supposed to be made for two reasons: 1. the personal compulsion to create something that reflects the individual, and 2. sharing those products with a limited expectation of fiscal reward. This is not to downplay the desire to make a living from art, but an informed historical perspective doesn't infer that technology and modern business has changed the nature of the relationship between artists and consumers very much.
  - SyneRyder 11y ago
    As a music purchaser who doesn't torrent music, I like that Spotify lets me try new music in a convenient & legal way. It's a step in the purchasing process, not the final destination. There's a German metal/rock band called Unheilig that I heard about in 2013. After seeing a YouTube clip [1], Spotify / Rdio let me try more of their songs & add them to my playlists. That hooked me enough to add the album to my Spotify offline downloads so I can listen on the train. At that point, I'm a committed fan who doesn't want to lose the album... so that's when I buy the CD. Two years later, I've bought all their albums, 2 limited Super Deluxe editions, t-shirts & hats & merch, and been to two of their concerts. Unheilig probably got nearly nothing from me via Spotify, but it was an important step in getting me hooked & ultimately spending hundreds of dollars. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl-mvbxAf-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl-mvbxAf-k
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  You know, artists have to pay radio for the exposure. Spotify gets them the same thing, not only for free, but paying the artists.

joosters 11y ago

I thought that their rates are comparable to radio stations (in countries where radio music is licensed, e.g. UK) The rate per listener is tiny, but there are lots of listeners.

6stringmerc 11y ago
You're not wrong from what I understand of the U.S. system - it's a constant point of contention between labels and the streaming industry regarding how much is paid out. For radio airplay in the U.S., the songwriter gets paid while the performer does not. It's a convoluted system definitely measured in cents, not dollars.