3 ms·
This is, of course, at the costs of the artists, who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. The last year has pretty much killed t
by desine 6y ago
This is, of course, at the costs of the artists, who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. The last year has pretty much killed the viability of independent musicians being able to survive off their passion.
- twicetwice 6y agoI'm sure that (read: I'm very hopeful that) that will change once pandemic restrictions lift because there will be a surge of demand for live music, public entertainment, and so on -- a pretty extreme sort of rubber band effect.
- maroonblazer 6y agoIn most cases a consumer of live music first needs to be aware of the artist before paying money to see them live. That is/was one of the benefits of making and marketing music - building awareness that then drives ticket sales, merch, etc.
- chii 6y ago> who make close to nothing on streaming, if they're not in the very top. if they are a small artist, i think they would prefer that they get some listen time and discovery, even if they're not paid much from it. It's better than zero discovery and noone knowing about them. They would get an opportunity to play live gigs if they get an audience from streaming music.
- elijaht 6y agoThat is something that bothers me about Spotify, realizing that a small artist is making pennies off of me. Genuinely asking- is there a better business model for them? I would imagine that (pandemic aside) discovery via streams leads to merch / tours / album sales they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.