4 ms·

It's not Spotify's responsibility to make sure indie artists are getting paid.

mkl 6y ago
Well, it is definitely in Spotify's interest to keep as many quality artists as possible on Spotify, and that probably involves paying them.
- devalgo 6y ago
  I think you missed my point, obviously you should get paid for your monthly listens but it's not Spotify's responsibility to drive listeners to your music. You are obviously free to market and promote as much as you can, hitching your success or failure to Spotify including you in Discover seems like a sure way to fail to make a living.
- _eht 6y ago
  I heard a rumour once that artists did not actually need to eat. /s
  - devalgo 6y ago
    Imagine saying this about a CD store a few decades ago. It would be ridiculous to say that a store was responsible for promoting indie artist CDs. If you want to get listens or sales make good music, it's pretty simple.
    - rewgs 6y ago
      On the other hand, money earned from streaming vs money earned from CD sales (especially a few decades ago) is completely incomparable. If selling CDs through a store could earn you (using simple but realistic numbers here) $100k per year, and Spotify streams to the same audience size earn $1k per year, it’s not unreasonable to expect that Spotify should add a hell of a lot more value on its end, perhaps in the form of driving listeners to artists — especially if Spotify possesses the means to.
crispyporkbites 6y ago
It's not anyones responsibility to ensure indie artists, or any kind of art for that matter, exists It would be nice if people cared about things beyond $$$ and worked on art for the sake of art
- devalgo 6y ago
  >It would be nice if people cared about things beyond $$$ and worked on art for the sake of art True but you generally can't buy groceries or pay your landlord with art.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    It would be nice if landlords provided shelter for the sake of providing shelter, and grocers worked for the sake of feeding people, too. And somehow, I've never seen anybody suggest that since Daniel Ek and his team love music so much, they should forego worldly possessions and work for the sake of bringing music to the people.
    - crispyporkbites 6y ago
      > It would be nice if landlords provided shelter for the sake of providing shelter, and grocers worked for the sake of feeding people, too. One day, we can hope.
- rewgs 6y ago
  It would be nice if you cared about things beyond $$$ and worked on code for the sake of code. Try listening to only amateur musicians for a month while you work. You might come back with an appreciation for just how much effort and money is required to produce the art you personally care about.
  - noizejoy 6y ago
    > ... just how much effort and money is required to produce the art you personally care about. I wholeheartedly agree with the “effort” part and I also think, the comparison of music to code is very apt. However, wouldn’t it be fair to say that the money investment for creating the music (i.e. a mastered WAV or whatever format) can be incredibly low these days? And even distribution is incredibly low cost. So barrier to entry for recorded music has been lowered to almost zero (for music as well as coding) compared to the days of vinyl and mainframe computers. Also, since it’s so incredibly difficult to make a living making music, I find that many professional calibre musicians are indistinguishable from amateur musicians if you go by music income. I honestly expect these days I could listen to very good music for a month by people who aren’t making a living from music (i.e. amateurs). But I’d argue that actually is the problem. Unfortunately I don’t know how to tell those musicians from the one’s who are making a living with music (professionals) on the major streaming platforms, so I can’t put this to a test.
yedava 6y ago
Spotify's responsibility is to cater to its users' preferences. But preferences don't exist in a vacuum. They are a consequence of a society's values. If a society cares only about a few winners taking it all, then yes, indie artists should have no expectation of getting paid. But if a society cares about cultivating art and not just about profits, it would want to incentivize a wider group of people making a living from creating art.

mkl 6y ago

Well, it is definitely in Spotify's interest to keep as many quality artists as possible on Spotify, and that probably involves paying them.

devalgo 6y ago
I think you missed my point, obviously you should get paid for your monthly listens but it's not Spotify's responsibility to drive listeners to your music. You are obviously free to market and promote as much as you can, hitching your success or failure to Spotify including you in Discover seems like a sure way to fail to make a living.
_eht 6y ago
I heard a rumour once that artists did not actually need to eat. /s
- devalgo 6y ago
  Imagine saying this about a CD store a few decades ago. It would be ridiculous to say that a store was responsible for promoting indie artist CDs. If you want to get listens or sales make good music, it's pretty simple.
  - rewgs 6y ago
    On the other hand, money earned from streaming vs money earned from CD sales (especially a few decades ago) is completely incomparable. If selling CDs through a store could earn you (using simple but realistic numbers here) $100k per year, and Spotify streams to the same audience size earn $1k per year, it’s not unreasonable to expect that Spotify should add a hell of a lot more value on its end, perhaps in the form of driving listeners to artists — especially if Spotify possesses the means to.

crispyporkbites 6y ago

It's not anyones responsibility to ensure indie artists, or any kind of art for that matter, exists It would be nice if people cared about things beyond $$$ and worked on art for the sake of art

devalgo 6y ago
>It would be nice if people cared about things beyond $$$ and worked on art for the sake of art True but you generally can't buy groceries or pay your landlord with art.
- microtherion 6y ago
  It would be nice if landlords provided shelter for the sake of providing shelter, and grocers worked for the sake of feeding people, too. And somehow, I've never seen anybody suggest that since Daniel Ek and his team love music so much, they should forego worldly possessions and work for the sake of bringing music to the people.
  - crispyporkbites 6y ago
    > It would be nice if landlords provided shelter for the sake of providing shelter, and grocers worked for the sake of feeding people, too. One day, we can hope.
rewgs 6y ago
It would be nice if you cared about things beyond $$$ and worked on code for the sake of code. Try listening to only amateur musicians for a month while you work. You might come back with an appreciation for just how much effort and money is required to produce the art you personally care about.
- noizejoy 6y ago
  > ... just how much effort and money is required to produce the art you personally care about. I wholeheartedly agree with the “effort” part and I also think, the comparison of music to code is very apt. However, wouldn’t it be fair to say that the money investment for creating the music (i.e. a mastered WAV or whatever format) can be incredibly low these days? And even distribution is incredibly low cost. So barrier to entry for recorded music has been lowered to almost zero (for music as well as coding) compared to the days of vinyl and mainframe computers. Also, since it’s so incredibly difficult to make a living making music, I find that many professional calibre musicians are indistinguishable from amateur musicians if you go by music income. I honestly expect these days I could listen to very good music for a month by people who aren’t making a living from music (i.e. amateurs). But I’d argue that actually is the problem. Unfortunately I don’t know how to tell those musicians from the one’s who are making a living with music (professionals) on the major streaming platforms, so I can’t put this to a test.

yedava 6y ago

Spotify's responsibility is to cater to its users' preferences. But preferences don't exist in a vacuum. They are a consequence of a society's values. If a society cares only about a few winners taking it all, then yes, indie artists should have no expectation of getting paid. But if a society cares about cultivating art and not just about profits, it would want to incentivize a wider group of people making a living from creating art.