3 ms·

This is a great counterpoint to people complaining about how little they make from Spotify. One thing that stuck out to me: > Because you can only submit one

This is a great counterpoint to people complaining about how little they make from Spotify. One thing that stuck out to me: > Because you can only submit one song, it’s best to space out releases. That way you can have ten singles considered by Spotify editors— rather than one single from an album for an entire year. I've wondered why so many artists were releasing a ton of singles on Spotify. This seems like a gameable system.

dyeje 8y ago
Is it though? The author makes $400 a month, that's not even close to being a living. Mis metrics and revenue match up with my own experience with Spotify and they are very difficult to achieve. Now imagine that your musical project has 4 people instead of 1, now it's $100 a month per person. Except just kidding, because you'll need to pump all that money (and personal money from members) back into the band to keep things growing.
- driverdan 8y ago
  It's a success because he considers it to be one. Also he's earning more money from his music on Spotify than he was through other means. He explicitly says he's not trying to earn a living from it. > Of course that’s not enough to support a full-time artist but that’s not what I’m trying to be. I don't tour, I don't sell merch and I'm not on a label. I just want to make music and Spotify is making that possible.
  - dyeje 8y ago
    Sorry, I should have been more clear. The 'Is it though?" is in response to saying it's a great counterpoint to people complaining about how little they make from Spotify. The author isn't trying to make a living of Spotify, but many people are. Spotify revenue isn't even close to enough for them even if you're extremely successful getting listeners like the author has been.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  I think the key point is the artist didn’t really have to do any promotion. Or spend on marketing.
- empath75 8y ago
  It's a hobby for him, not a living. Most people make $0 from their hobbies.
rashomon 8y ago
In reality, albums were always so artificial. They were either filled with crap fillers, silly interludes or were just pawned off by the record company as a need to sell units. Singles is where the heart of the artist lie.

dyeje 8y ago

Is it though? The author makes $400 a month, that's not even close to being a living. Mis metrics and revenue match up with my own experience with Spotify and they are very difficult to achieve. Now imagine that your musical project has 4 people instead of 1, now it's $100 a month per person. Except just kidding, because you'll need to pump all that money (and personal money from members) back into the band to keep things growing.

driverdan 8y ago
It's a success because he considers it to be one. Also he's earning more money from his music on Spotify than he was through other means. He explicitly says he's not trying to earn a living from it. > Of course that’s not enough to support a full-time artist but that’s not what I’m trying to be. I don't tour, I don't sell merch and I'm not on a label. I just want to make music and Spotify is making that possible.
- dyeje 8y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more clear. The 'Is it though?" is in response to saying it's a great counterpoint to people complaining about how little they make from Spotify. The author isn't trying to make a living of Spotify, but many people are. Spotify revenue isn't even close to enough for them even if you're extremely successful getting listeners like the author has been.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
I think the key point is the artist didn’t really have to do any promotion. Or spend on marketing.
empath75 8y ago
It's a hobby for him, not a living. Most people make $0 from their hobbies.

rashomon 8y ago

In reality, albums were always so artificial. They were either filled with crap fillers, silly interludes or were just pawned off by the record company as a need to sell units. Singles is where the heart of the artist lie.