4 ms·

As an amateur musician I still make most of my monthly sales from iTunes. Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name – which incentivizes the big labels

As an amateur musician I still make most of my monthly sales from iTunes. Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name – which incentivizes the big labels while squeezing the smaller artists. Early platform like Lala (bought by Apple) had a cool model – $0.10 per song, but you can only stream it. Ownership was still there, and artists were paid equally per sale. Nevertheless, getting your music distributed is easier today than ever, and I'm sure all artists are grateful for that.

criddell 8y ago
> Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name Are you saying big acts get more per stream? Also, I'd love to hear what you think about how the incentives from Spotify et al are changing music itself. From what I understand, a play isn't registered until a certain portion of the song has been played. This hurts songs that have a slow build and so hooks are being pushed right up front. Do you think it's homogenizing music to any degree?
- jasode 8y ago
  >Are you saying big acts get more per stream? The big acts may get more per stream because of 2 factors: 1) the Spotify allocation algorithm of subscription payments works top-down from the most popular artists' percentage of total streams instead of bottom-up from individuals' play logs. (The top comment of a previous HN thread discusses this.[1]) 2) Some record labels have (had?) negotiated sweetheart deals with Spotify for different revenue share and stream payouts. So a Universal/Sony/Warner major label with a roster of desirable artists that Spotify wanted may get slightly more per stream than an unknown indie label with no leverage. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9226497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9226497
  - criddell 8y ago
    > Some record labels have (had?) sweetheart deals with Spotify That reminds me of something else I've been thinking about. The labels all have substantial equity stakes in Spotify. It feels like that could be a massive conflict of interest or maybe a collusion problem. Why should the labels push for higher streaming fees when that could hurt Spotify's stock price which would hurt the label's own balance sheets?
    - skinnymuch 8y ago
      I thought they mostly exited by now. I know Sony and Universal sold significant amounts of their stakes.
- matthoiland 8y ago
  I don't think Spotify (streaming services) are influencing the composition of new music – listening habits are mostly unchanged since popular music in the 50's. The 3-minute song with the initial hook is a product of 50's AM radio. Whereas Radiohead/Sigur Ros/Slowdive artists with long builds do so intentionally, and their listeners enjoy that about them. But.... what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content in order to compete in the algorithm arena. Some artists understand this, and more singles, EPs and early album previews allow for more "touch points" with their audiences throughout the year.
  - criddell 8y ago
    > what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content So, the album is dying? Could something like Pink Floyd's The Wall be released today? It's a two CD package with gapless songs.
    - moate 8y ago
      The Album has always been a weird thing. Yes, the album as a concept has largely fallen off. It has very little advantage over a 2-4 song EP at this point. You no longer need to package weak b-sides in, because they're not going to get plays anyway. More bangers, less chaff. But yea, you can still do a concept album like The Wall or Sgt. Pepper's. Kids doing drugs and laying around listing to weird noises for an hour+ is still a thing these days.
      - NikolaeVarius 8y ago
        I don't quite understand this claim that the concept of Albums have fallen off, Metal still puts out quality albums today.
    - ComodoHacker 8y ago
      The album maybe is being transformed into something like TV series. When you wait for the next week to hear the next verse. And to fully understand any particular one, you have to listen to previous 2 or 3.

criddell 8y ago

> Streaming pays so little, unless you're a big name Are you saying big acts get more per stream? Also, I'd love to hear what you think about how the incentives from Spotify et al are changing music itself. From what I understand, a play isn't registered until a certain portion of the song has been played. This hurts songs that have a slow build and so hooks are being pushed right up front. Do you think it's homogenizing music to any degree?

jasode 8y ago
>Are you saying big acts get more per stream? The big acts may get more per stream because of 2 factors: 1) the Spotify allocation algorithm of subscription payments works top-down from the most popular artists' percentage of total streams instead of bottom-up from individuals' play logs. (The top comment of a previous HN thread discusses this.[1]) 2) Some record labels have (had?) negotiated sweetheart deals with Spotify for different revenue share and stream payouts. So a Universal/Sony/Warner major label with a roster of desirable artists that Spotify wanted may get slightly more per stream than an unknown indie label with no leverage. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9226497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9226497
- criddell 8y ago
  > Some record labels have (had?) sweetheart deals with Spotify That reminds me of something else I've been thinking about. The labels all have substantial equity stakes in Spotify. It feels like that could be a massive conflict of interest or maybe a collusion problem. Why should the labels push for higher streaming fees when that could hurt Spotify's stock price which would hurt the label's own balance sheets?
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    I thought they mostly exited by now. I know Sony and Universal sold significant amounts of their stakes.
matthoiland 8y ago
I don't think Spotify (streaming services) are influencing the composition of new music – listening habits are mostly unchanged since popular music in the 50's. The 3-minute song with the initial hook is a product of 50's AM radio. Whereas Radiohead/Sigur Ros/Slowdive artists with long builds do so intentionally, and their listeners enjoy that about them. But.... what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content in order to compete in the algorithm arena. Some artists understand this, and more singles, EPs and early album previews allow for more "touch points" with their audiences throughout the year.
- criddell 8y ago
  > what has changed is the frequency in which artists need to release content So, the album is dying? Could something like Pink Floyd's The Wall be released today? It's a two CD package with gapless songs.
  - moate 8y ago
    The Album has always been a weird thing. Yes, the album as a concept has largely fallen off. It has very little advantage over a 2-4 song EP at this point. You no longer need to package weak b-sides in, because they're not going to get plays anyway. More bangers, less chaff. But yea, you can still do a concept album like The Wall or Sgt. Pepper's. Kids doing drugs and laying around listing to weird noises for an hour+ is still a thing these days.
    - NikolaeVarius 8y ago
      I don't quite understand this claim that the concept of Albums have fallen off, Metal still puts out quality albums today.
  - ComodoHacker 8y ago
    The album maybe is being transformed into something like TV series. When you wait for the next week to hear the next verse. And to fully understand any particular one, you have to listen to previous 2 or 3.