5 ms·

> I pay them because I want to compensate artists. You're paying the wrong people then. If you want to help artists buy their music instead of renting it from

> I pay them because I want to compensate artists. You're paying the wrong people then. If you want to help artists buy their music instead of renting it from streaming services, which may lose access to it at any time.

tormeh 10y ago
Labels take most of that as well. Spotify isn't the problem - the labels are.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Aren't the labels basically the VCs that enabled the artists to reach you in the first place?
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    In the old days where you needed to print lots of CDs and distribute them, maybe. These days, I'm not sure they're really necessary. But then I'm not an artist so I can't really say.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  Yeah I've thought about this. Grooveshark tried to cut out that middle-man and they got sued to hell by the labels. If artists keep signing with labels, their problem. You don't need a label to be on Spotify.
  - thirdsun 10y ago
    > Grooveshark tried to cut out that middle-man and they got sued to hell by the labels. Let's call it what it was: Plain piracy. Grooveshark had no rights and licensing in place for the content they streamed.
    - lucb1e 10y ago
      Does Youtube? Grooveshark complied with DMCA; the only thing they really shouldn't have done is upload music illegally as a policy (by the company itself). But I'm sure there are people who now work at Youtube that also uploaded music there in the past, it's just not official. So yeah it's a bit more piratey than other upload sites, but that could have been solved with a policy change to not upload music illegally from corporate accounts. For artists they were much more accessible than Spotify currently is, but they hated labels for taking a huge cut and didn't make deals up front. I can't say I disagree with them. I still miss Grooveshark.
      - thirdsun 10y ago
        > but they hated labels for taking a huge cut and didn't make deals up front. I can't say I disagree with them. I really think you're misguided here. Sure, evil labels are a welcome narrative for Grooveshark's very illegitimate service. I'm sure you're already familiar with these stories, but to get a taste of how Grooveshark used to deal with artists read this: https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/dec/12/grooveshark-music-site https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/dec/12/groo... Youtube on the other hand is actually used by artists as a promotional tool. And if it isn't their takedown process actually works. Almost too good judging by the stories about false positives in their ContentID system.
- thirdsun 10y ago
  I'm very tired of this myth. When I see these arguments they usually only cover major labels that operate in big budget, mainstream releases that might indeed be unfavorable to the artist. However the fact that labels come in all forms and colors is often ignored. There are truly caring small, independent and successful labels that serve as curator rather than expensive middleman. Artists can absolutely have fair deals with a label. Furthermore for music enthusiast seeing new releases on a favorite label is a strong indicator for quality. That is a valuable service. Spotify is a problem if it's not sustainable - and it doesn't seem to be for the company and artist alike.
lucb1e 10y ago
> If you want to help artists buy their music instead of renting it from streaming services I'd be paying twice: the artists themselves and the streaming service (which gives part to the artist again). From my all-time favorites I did try buying directly, but they usually don't even have a contact method other than through the label or on a public channel like Twitter. And if I manage to send an email, they don't bother with individuals and just ignore it. Only a few artists have online shops where you can buy directly.

tormeh 10y ago

Labels take most of that as well. Spotify isn't the problem - the labels are.

StavrosK 10y ago
Aren't the labels basically the VCs that enabled the artists to reach you in the first place?
- lucb1e 10y ago
  In the old days where you needed to print lots of CDs and distribute them, maybe. These days, I'm not sure they're really necessary. But then I'm not an artist so I can't really say.
lucb1e 10y ago
Yeah I've thought about this. Grooveshark tried to cut out that middle-man and they got sued to hell by the labels. If artists keep signing with labels, their problem. You don't need a label to be on Spotify.
- thirdsun 10y ago
  > Grooveshark tried to cut out that middle-man and they got sued to hell by the labels. Let's call it what it was: Plain piracy. Grooveshark had no rights and licensing in place for the content they streamed.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    Does Youtube? Grooveshark complied with DMCA; the only thing they really shouldn't have done is upload music illegally as a policy (by the company itself). But I'm sure there are people who now work at Youtube that also uploaded music there in the past, it's just not official. So yeah it's a bit more piratey than other upload sites, but that could have been solved with a policy change to not upload music illegally from corporate accounts. For artists they were much more accessible than Spotify currently is, but they hated labels for taking a huge cut and didn't make deals up front. I can't say I disagree with them. I still miss Grooveshark.
    - thirdsun 10y ago
      > but they hated labels for taking a huge cut and didn't make deals up front. I can't say I disagree with them. I really think you're misguided here. Sure, evil labels are a welcome narrative for Grooveshark's very illegitimate service. I'm sure you're already familiar with these stories, but to get a taste of how Grooveshark used to deal with artists read this: https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/dec/12/grooveshark-music-site https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/dec/12/groo... Youtube on the other hand is actually used by artists as a promotional tool. And if it isn't their takedown process actually works. Almost too good judging by the stories about false positives in their ContentID system.
thirdsun 10y ago
I'm very tired of this myth. When I see these arguments they usually only cover major labels that operate in big budget, mainstream releases that might indeed be unfavorable to the artist. However the fact that labels come in all forms and colors is often ignored. There are truly caring small, independent and successful labels that serve as curator rather than expensive middleman. Artists can absolutely have fair deals with a label. Furthermore for music enthusiast seeing new releases on a favorite label is a strong indicator for quality. That is a valuable service. Spotify is a problem if it's not sustainable - and it doesn't seem to be for the company and artist alike.

lucb1e 10y ago

> If you want to help artists buy their music instead of renting it from streaming services I'd be paying twice: the artists themselves and the streaming service (which gives part to the artist again). From my all-time favorites I did try buying directly, but they usually don't even have a contact method other than through the label or on a public channel like Twitter. And if I manage to send an email, they don't bother with individuals and just ignore it. Only a few artists have online shops where you can buy directly.