3 ms·

Said no music artist ever.

by mehly 9y ago

whiddershins 9y ago
Upvoted because I agree with the sentiment but also not true. Look at how the interpretation of copyright as it pertains to sampling and mashing etc absolutely stifled innovation and continues to do so. For visual art look at how ambiguous the law is around collage, which definitely stifles innovation.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  It's simply nonsense to claim that sampling and mashups have been stifled by copyright law. Ignoring a few ancient parody/satire acts like Negativland, samples are made, used, cleared, and paid for with no serious negative consequences. Likewise remixes. There's some extra paperwork, money changes hands, and on the whole everyone is happy. What's been far more damaging is Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that. That's not just Spotify's model; it's music labels' model.
  - dmitriid 9y ago
    Spotify would gladly pay the artists all the money and it could. And it can’t. Precisely because of copyright laws: you end up paying the labels, not the artists.
    - EADGBE 9y ago
      Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FWIW, they would have had to sell ~100 (~450 for signed artists) albums in a month to make this same money vs. streaming. At this point, affiliating with a label is only worth it when you know you're going to break out. Most musicians, even niche ones, have learned how to use the system their confined in, and do well off of a royalty-based model vs the traditional selling-CDs-at-a-show [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-... [2] http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-paying-off-house-streaming-revenue/ http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-pa...
      - whiddershins 9y ago
        FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now. Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up. I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems that make it infeasible for certain types of artists to make any sort of living.
        whiddershins 9y ago
        Edit: I’m not advocating for touring being better. I hate touring. But the streaming amounts we’re discussing are really tiny in the end. The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.
        EADGBE 9y ago
        > The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success. I'd surely hope $7000/month is considered a success. A passive $700/month from streams would be considered a success around here. This is the assumption the stream counts continue, of course.
        EADGBE 9y ago
        Yes, if you're touring. The new way doesn't require this. And is purely gravy on top. I was just giving numbers, not condoning their payout scheme as something to move forward with.

Said no music artist ever.

by mehly 9y ago

Said no music artist ever.

Upvoted because I agree with the sentiment but also not true. Look at how the interpretation of copyright as it pertains to sampling and mashing etc absolutely stifled innovation and continues to do so. For visual art look at how ambiguous the law is around collage, which definitely stifles innovation.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
It's simply nonsense to claim that sampling and mashups have been stifled by copyright law. Ignoring a few ancient parody/satire acts like Negativland, samples are made, used, cleared, and paid for with no serious negative consequences. Likewise remixes. There's some extra paperwork, money changes hands, and on the whole everyone is happy. What's been far more damaging is Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  > Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that. That's not just Spotify's model; it's music labels' model.
- dmitriid 9y ago
  Spotify would gladly pay the artists all the money and it could. And it can’t. Precisely because of copyright laws: you end up paying the labels, not the artists.
  - EADGBE 9y ago
    Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FWIW, they would have had to sell ~100 (~450 for signed artists) albums in a month to make this same money vs. streaming. At this point, affiliating with a label is only worth it when you know you're going to break out. Most musicians, even niche ones, have learned how to use the system their confined in, and do well off of a royalty-based model vs the traditional selling-CDs-at-a-show [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-... [2] http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-paying-off-house-streaming-revenue/ http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-pa...
    - whiddershins 9y ago
      FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now. Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up. I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems that make it infeasible for certain types of artists to make any sort of living.
      - whiddershins 9y ago
        Edit: I’m not advocating for touring being better. I hate touring. But the streaming amounts we’re discussing are really tiny in the end. The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.
        EADGBE 9y ago
        > The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success. I'd surely hope $7000/month is considered a success. A passive $700/month from streams would be considered a success around here. This is the assumption the stream counts continue, of course.
      - EADGBE 9y ago
        Yes, if you're touring. The new way doesn't require this. And is purely gravy on top. I was just giving numbers, not condoning their payout scheme as something to move forward with.