7 ms·

If this is not sustainable for the artists, how is this different than piracy? I'd say it is even worse, because people is paying but the money goes to a middle

by 101008 6y ago

If this is not sustainable for the artists, how is this different than piracy? I'd say it is even worse, because people is paying but the money goes to a middleware company that is not paying the right price. It is like buying CDs from the street sellers.

Milner08 6y ago
Right, but the money has always gone to a middleman, be it record companies or Spotify. If Spotify gets any more expensive I can guarantee people will go back to privacy, music will become less accessible and those niche bands that Spotify knows I may like will never get found. I understand the need to get paid more, but I am not sure killing Spotify is the solution.
- meiraleal 6y ago
  > I understand the need to get paid more, but I am not sure killing Spotify is the solution. If Spotify doesn't compromise, killing it would be the only solution, but this union doesn't have the power to do that initially. But this will never work because you have a infinite stream of new musicians wanting to be listen without receiving money for that.
  - s0xTester 6y ago
    Killing Spotify would be terrible. New musicians want their work out there....without Spotify(or similar) it will be back to just blasting out your music for free online everywhere so you can get bug. Spotify at least gives them some revenue while they increase their fandom.
- 101008 6y ago
  Those niche bands will put their music for free online until they are well known to get their fans pay for the music, as they did in the 90s and 00s.
  - Milner08 6y ago
    Its not about it being free online, its about discovery. Spotify is currently excellent for discovering new bands. TPB? Not so much.
- moistbar 6y ago
  And what do you expect to happen to Spotify when the musicians leave for someplace that pays them appropriately?
  - SCHiM 6y ago
    The answer is piracy again. For a moment in time, piracy of movies and series was at a low point. Recently, with the fragmentation of all the different streaming services it's rising again.
    - moistbar 6y ago
      The real answer is that Spotify will melt under its own inadequacy and the new platform will thrive. You adapt or you die, and I would have no sympathy for Spotify if they couldn't adapt.
      - leesalminen 6y ago
        Presumably these new brands have to charge their customers more in order to pay the artists more, right? I’m about at the max of what I’m willing to pay for music per month...
      - Milner08 6y ago
        I don't care if its Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music or some new competitor. But if they get more expensive they will not win people over.
  - disgu 6y ago
    Musicians have complained in the past and threatened to leave and some have left... just to then come back.
    - kgog 6y ago
      I'm trying to come up with a word for that.. I think it starts with a M and ends with a Y and has a onopol in the middle somewhere.
illuminati1911 6y ago
Clearly it is as artists are not starving and can pay for their rent, lifestyle etc. They just simply ”want more”, and who wouldn’t, but free market and supply/demand disagrees with them. If artists don’t like Spotify’s offering they can pull their music out of the service.
s0xTester 6y ago
I mean....radio was never a money maker for acts. It was to get their name out their to make money elsewhere. Just kinda how the market is setup. I don't think it is unsustainable for artists. I fucking hate "exposure", but that is literally what radio/streaming is is. It is never a substantial revenue stream until you hit big. And with today's tech, radio had to become streaming. Paying a penny per stream is highly unsustainable for everyone. What would you suggest to fix it? I think the system is pretty decent all things considered. Now, Spotify could definitely be better at hyping and pushing new music/low creators....but other than that I don't think they're the enemy here.
- tgv 6y ago
  Streaming isn't comparable to radio. If a penny per stream is unsustainable, perhaps we better go back to just radio. Hyping new music isn't going to do shit about revenue.
sparkling 6y ago
> If this is not sustainable for the artists, how is this different than piracy? The difference is that every artist has a choice if his music lands on Spotify or not - and if he accepts the conditions offered. The main problem of many of these artists is that they signed bad distribution deals with their labels and are giving away a big chunk % of streaming revenues. That isn't Spotifys fault. Also, according to Spotifys latest financial statement, they are expecting a $200-300m operating loss for 2021, so i find it hard to argue that Spotify is being "too greedy" when they aren't even profitable.
efsavage 6y ago
"sustainable for the artists" There seems to be some idea of what musicians "should" make that other professions don't benefit from. I would like to make the same money from making furniture as I do from writing code, but I can't. I could blame the furniture stores for not promoting me or taking too big a cut or any number of other factors, or I could accept the fact that I'm not an amazing woodworker. But I still make my art/craft because I enjoy it and it's important to me. There are plenty of ways for musicians to make a living, but I don't see a problem with the fact that spending a month or two a year recording an album is a privilege available to only the most talented subset of them.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  > I could blame the furniture stores for not promoting me or taking too big a cut or any number of other factors not only could you but you should. Of course workers over the last few decades have internalised the mindset that they cannot use their power to bargain and that whatever they get is fair and they should just shut up, which is why we tolerate corporate middlemen eating our lunch. I don't know if a penny per song is realistic or whatever, but going up against Spotify and record labels and trying to negotiate as much compensation for artists as possible collectively is exactly what they ought to do. Also, on the other end, as consumers we need to stop whining when we have to pay twenty bucks instead of ten bucks per month to compensate artists who we spend listening hours to every single week.
  - disgu 6y ago
    Spotify is not the corporate middle man. The big record companies are. Any musician is free to not put their music on spotify and to not sell the rights to a record company. They can then let you stream a song for $50 on their website. It's also absolutely ridiculous that you champion those who want to make more money while also saying that everyone on the other end who wants to spend less should "stop whining".
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      I champion people who produce things, be that artists, software developers, woodworkers or anyone else who builds stuff. Spotify and labels are both distributors and middlemen who profit from the work of others, it's consumers and large platforms that squeeze creators with their greedy mindset of 'as much as possible, for as little money as possible'. It's long overdue that we move away from this sleazy consumer mindset and start valuing creators.
FireBeyond 6y ago
> I'd say it is even worse, because people is paying but the money goes to a middleware company that is not paying the right price Because of contracts the _artists_ signed, not the consumer.

by 101008 6y ago

Milner08 6y ago

Right, but the money has always gone to a middleman, be it record companies or Spotify. If Spotify gets any more expensive I can guarantee people will go back to privacy, music will become less accessible and those niche bands that Spotify knows I may like will never get found. I understand the need to get paid more, but I am not sure killing Spotify is the solution.

meiraleal 6y ago
> I understand the need to get paid more, but I am not sure killing Spotify is the solution. If Spotify doesn't compromise, killing it would be the only solution, but this union doesn't have the power to do that initially. But this will never work because you have a infinite stream of new musicians wanting to be listen without receiving money for that.
- s0xTester 6y ago
  Killing Spotify would be terrible. New musicians want their work out there....without Spotify(or similar) it will be back to just blasting out your music for free online everywhere so you can get bug. Spotify at least gives them some revenue while they increase their fandom.
101008 6y ago
Those niche bands will put their music for free online until they are well known to get their fans pay for the music, as they did in the 90s and 00s.
- Milner08 6y ago
  Its not about it being free online, its about discovery. Spotify is currently excellent for discovering new bands. TPB? Not so much.
moistbar 6y ago
And what do you expect to happen to Spotify when the musicians leave for someplace that pays them appropriately?
- SCHiM 6y ago
  The answer is piracy again. For a moment in time, piracy of movies and series was at a low point. Recently, with the fragmentation of all the different streaming services it's rising again.
  - moistbar 6y ago
    The real answer is that Spotify will melt under its own inadequacy and the new platform will thrive. You adapt or you die, and I would have no sympathy for Spotify if they couldn't adapt.
    - leesalminen 6y ago
      Presumably these new brands have to charge their customers more in order to pay the artists more, right? I’m about at the max of what I’m willing to pay for music per month...
    - Milner08 6y ago
      I don't care if its Spotify, Tidal, Apple Music or some new competitor. But if they get more expensive they will not win people over.
- disgu 6y ago
  Musicians have complained in the past and threatened to leave and some have left... just to then come back.
  - kgog 6y ago
    I'm trying to come up with a word for that.. I think it starts with a M and ends with a Y and has a onopol in the middle somewhere.

illuminati1911 6y ago

Clearly it is as artists are not starving and can pay for their rent, lifestyle etc. They just simply ”want more”, and who wouldn’t, but free market and supply/demand disagrees with them. If artists don’t like Spotify’s offering they can pull their music out of the service.

s0xTester 6y ago

I mean....radio was never a money maker for acts. It was to get their name out their to make money elsewhere. Just kinda how the market is setup. I don't think it is unsustainable for artists. I fucking hate "exposure", but that is literally what radio/streaming is is. It is never a substantial revenue stream until you hit big. And with today's tech, radio had to become streaming. Paying a penny per stream is highly unsustainable for everyone. What would you suggest to fix it? I think the system is pretty decent all things considered. Now, Spotify could definitely be better at hyping and pushing new music/low creators....but other than that I don't think they're the enemy here.

tgv 6y ago
Streaming isn't comparable to radio. If a penny per stream is unsustainable, perhaps we better go back to just radio. Hyping new music isn't going to do shit about revenue.

sparkling 6y ago

> If this is not sustainable for the artists, how is this different than piracy? The difference is that every artist has a choice if his music lands on Spotify or not - and if he accepts the conditions offered. The main problem of many of these artists is that they signed bad distribution deals with their labels and are giving away a big chunk % of streaming revenues. That isn't Spotifys fault. Also, according to Spotifys latest financial statement, they are expecting a $200-300m operating loss for 2021, so i find it hard to argue that Spotify is being "too greedy" when they aren't even profitable.

efsavage 6y ago

"sustainable for the artists" There seems to be some idea of what musicians "should" make that other professions don't benefit from. I would like to make the same money from making furniture as I do from writing code, but I can't. I could blame the furniture stores for not promoting me or taking too big a cut or any number of other factors, or I could accept the fact that I'm not an amazing woodworker. But I still make my art/craft because I enjoy it and it's important to me. There are plenty of ways for musicians to make a living, but I don't see a problem with the fact that spending a month or two a year recording an album is a privilege available to only the most talented subset of them.

Barrin92 6y ago
> I could blame the furniture stores for not promoting me or taking too big a cut or any number of other factors not only could you but you should. Of course workers over the last few decades have internalised the mindset that they cannot use their power to bargain and that whatever they get is fair and they should just shut up, which is why we tolerate corporate middlemen eating our lunch. I don't know if a penny per song is realistic or whatever, but going up against Spotify and record labels and trying to negotiate as much compensation for artists as possible collectively is exactly what they ought to do. Also, on the other end, as consumers we need to stop whining when we have to pay twenty bucks instead of ten bucks per month to compensate artists who we spend listening hours to every single week.
- disgu 6y ago
  Spotify is not the corporate middle man. The big record companies are. Any musician is free to not put their music on spotify and to not sell the rights to a record company. They can then let you stream a song for $50 on their website. It's also absolutely ridiculous that you champion those who want to make more money while also saying that everyone on the other end who wants to spend less should "stop whining".
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    I champion people who produce things, be that artists, software developers, woodworkers or anyone else who builds stuff. Spotify and labels are both distributors and middlemen who profit from the work of others, it's consumers and large platforms that squeeze creators with their greedy mindset of 'as much as possible, for as little money as possible'. It's long overdue that we move away from this sleazy consumer mindset and start valuing creators.

FireBeyond 6y ago

> I'd say it is even worse, because people is paying but the money goes to a middleware company that is not paying the right price Because of contracts the _artists_ signed, not the consumer.