4 ms·

The way in which Spotify (and other streaming services) hurts the development of music isn’t what most people say. The problem with per-stream plays is that it

The way in which Spotify (and other streaming services) hurts the development of music isn’t what most people say. The problem with per-stream plays is that it is based on pop music logic: more streams equals more money. Fair! But many recording artists made a modest living by releasing music that you might not want to listen to over and over and over. This music is often labeled ‘art’ or ‘experimental’ or whatever, and for the enthusiast, paying $15 for a record of this stuff was great. Streaming services have no answer for this problem. It’s up to something like Patreon, if anything, to fill this gap. This is all sorta fine, but what grates in me is that it seems none of the streaming providers have even thought about this. They just don’t seem to be that in to music, and just think of types of pop music as representing all of music. This is where that above quote is just a little irritating.

dinglejungle 6y ago
Bandcamp?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
swinglock 6y ago
They could stop paying out flat per listen. If I pay $10 and listen to 50 tracks, I want $10 (minus the provides fee) to be split among precisely those 50 tracks. The difference is if you only listed to 50 tracks your listens are worth more that someone that diluted their listens over 5000. Throwing everyone's fees into one big vat and dividing that according to the total listens, is bullshit. I want my favorite artist to be paid by me and I don't want to subsidize the worlds most popular artists that I never listen to.
- abraae 6y ago
  That's your view, but artists likely hold the opposite view. I imagine they want to be paid more if more people listen to their music.
  - StringyBob 6y ago
    Here’s an example of what some artists want: https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2020/Jun/An-Update-on-the-Fix-Streaming-Campaign https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2020/Jun/An-Upda...
  - swinglock 6y ago
    My view isn't the opposite of that.
- sefrost 6y ago
  It would be very interesting to see which artists would win/lose from this scenario.
  - StringyBob 6y ago
    There is a gut feeling that indies and up-and-coming artists are losing out with their fans effectively subsidizing pop that gets more ‘disposable’ plays. I’m sure Spotify will know the numbers for moving to user centric streaming payouts, would be very interesting to know the truth of who the winners and losers would be. There’s a bit of info and some research here: https://musically.com/2020/05/13/what-are-user-centric-music-streaming-payouts/ https://musically.com/2020/05/13/what-are-user-centric-music... I think the option to be user centric could be a compelling feature for premium customers, to show money is going to artists fans love, and ultimately move more people on to the premium versions of streaming platforms Personally at this time I’m more concerned that my Spotify subscription is subsidizing podcasts by Joe Rogan than Drake / Taylor Swift.
- Traster 6y ago
  That doesn't take into account the spotify cut. What would you propose? Right now spotify pays a certain amount per song played, and covers this cost by charging $10 of whatever, and hoping the average user doesn't listen to more than song_cost*songs_listened. In your scenario, suddenly spotify's business risk has been transferred over to the artists themselves - if your songs get listened to by people who listen to a lot of music, you're going to get paid less per listen.
  - Renaud 6y ago
    >if your songs get listened to by people who listen to a lot of music, you're going to get paid less per listen. That still would be fairer than the current system and that edge case would be rare. As it stands today, we're all heavily subsidising the most popular (and well marketed) bands -not just their fans- leaving crumbs for other artists who end up having very little chance to see their lot improve at all. I'm paying Spotify to listen to the artists I like, hoping to support them so they can make more music I like. Instead, nearly everything I pay ends up in the pockets of artist I have no affinity for.
baby 6y ago
Streaming services (music, movies, books, etc.) are completely user-centric. It’s one place for you to consume your content. Discovery was never great there.
- mattacular 6y ago
  Spotify is actually pretty good for music discovery. For example, I routinely find new artists and songs from their daily mix and other generated playlists. It's miles ahead of what Apple Music could come up with even with way more listening data to analyze and is an exception amongst services like this.
HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
Patreon is also on the pop music logic: If you don't keep pumping out stuff people tend to stop donating.
- wazzaps 6y ago
  Patreon has a per-piece (max 1 per month) price plan
dcbadacd 6y ago
Actually they do have an answer for this problem: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52393960 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52393960

dinglejungle 6y ago

Bandcamp?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

swinglock 6y ago

They could stop paying out flat per listen. If I pay $10 and listen to 50 tracks, I want $10 (minus the provides fee) to be split among precisely those 50 tracks. The difference is if you only listed to 50 tracks your listens are worth more that someone that diluted their listens over 5000. Throwing everyone's fees into one big vat and dividing that according to the total listens, is bullshit. I want my favorite artist to be paid by me and I don't want to subsidize the worlds most popular artists that I never listen to.

abraae 6y ago
That's your view, but artists likely hold the opposite view. I imagine they want to be paid more if more people listen to their music.
- StringyBob 6y ago
  Here’s an example of what some artists want: https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2020/Jun/An-Update-on-the-Fix-Streaming-Campaign https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/News/2020/Jun/An-Upda...
- swinglock 6y ago
  My view isn't the opposite of that.
sefrost 6y ago
It would be very interesting to see which artists would win/lose from this scenario.
- StringyBob 6y ago
  There is a gut feeling that indies and up-and-coming artists are losing out with their fans effectively subsidizing pop that gets more ‘disposable’ plays. I’m sure Spotify will know the numbers for moving to user centric streaming payouts, would be very interesting to know the truth of who the winners and losers would be. There’s a bit of info and some research here: https://musically.com/2020/05/13/what-are-user-centric-music-streaming-payouts/ https://musically.com/2020/05/13/what-are-user-centric-music... I think the option to be user centric could be a compelling feature for premium customers, to show money is going to artists fans love, and ultimately move more people on to the premium versions of streaming platforms Personally at this time I’m more concerned that my Spotify subscription is subsidizing podcasts by Joe Rogan than Drake / Taylor Swift.
Traster 6y ago
That doesn't take into account the spotify cut. What would you propose? Right now spotify pays a certain amount per song played, and covers this cost by charging $10 of whatever, and hoping the average user doesn't listen to more than song_cost*songs_listened. In your scenario, suddenly spotify's business risk has been transferred over to the artists themselves - if your songs get listened to by people who listen to a lot of music, you're going to get paid less per listen.
- Renaud 6y ago
  >if your songs get listened to by people who listen to a lot of music, you're going to get paid less per listen. That still would be fairer than the current system and that edge case would be rare. As it stands today, we're all heavily subsidising the most popular (and well marketed) bands -not just their fans- leaving crumbs for other artists who end up having very little chance to see their lot improve at all. I'm paying Spotify to listen to the artists I like, hoping to support them so they can make more music I like. Instead, nearly everything I pay ends up in the pockets of artist I have no affinity for.

baby 6y ago

Streaming services (music, movies, books, etc.) are completely user-centric. It’s one place for you to consume your content. Discovery was never great there.

mattacular 6y ago
Spotify is actually pretty good for music discovery. For example, I routinely find new artists and songs from their daily mix and other generated playlists. It's miles ahead of what Apple Music could come up with even with way more listening data to analyze and is an exception amongst services like this.

HeadsUpHigh 6y ago

Patreon is also on the pop music logic: If you don't keep pumping out stuff people tend to stop donating.

wazzaps 6y ago
Patreon has a per-piece (max 1 per month) price plan

dcbadacd 6y ago

Actually they do have an answer for this problem: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52393960 https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52393960