7 ms·

"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

"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.
    - disgu 6y ago
      And I value the creators of Spotify who create good software and a great infrastructure for the service they're offering. I think we should move away from this sleazy consumer mindset that the creators of Spotify should not be rewarded for the service they're offering.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        are you under the impression that engineers at spotify are currently going hungry and working minimum wages? As developers we are already ridiculously overpaid compared to artists. We are the ones who benefit from the shit salaries that musicians make, which is of course why people on this website don't want to hear anything about creators bargaining. It's the people here who benefit from the status quo.
        pietrovismara 6y ago
        > We are the ones who benefit from the shit salaries that musicians make Not really. We are just being paid enough so that we do not leave for somewhere else. The ones who really benefit are the shareholders. Coincidentally, the same people who didn't do any of the work.
        bengale 6y ago
        >The ones who really benefit are the shareholders. Coincidentally, the same people who didn't do any of the work. This is how capitalism works though. There's no way Spotify can be expected to fundamentally change the economic system they exist in. Reversing that is heading into the realm of revolution.
- efsavage 6y ago
  My scenario is not one of power imbalance, it is that I simply cannot create enough economic value doing it to make a living, and I have no right to change anyone else's rules to accommodate for that fact. I cannot make you a bookshelf cheaper than you can buy one at IKEA. At my software developer rate a Billy Bookcase would cost you $1000. It's probably safe to say you aren't going to "stop whining" and pay that. But you know what I did last week? I didn't mope around at some job I hate complaining about "Big Furniture". I made a bookcase. I also wrote a bunch of software. I can call myself a woodworker, I paid my mortgage, and IKEA sold thousands of Billy Bookcases. All is good.
  - ProofByAccident 6y ago
    Your example is a little specious in that a bookcase is very different from a song. The production of one has huge economies of scale, whereas a song doesn't. I agree that producing things competitively is important to improve overall efficiency, but with the music industry you really have a small cartel of massive labels dictating the terms for everyone else (ie. engaging in massively anti-competitive behavior). It seems weird to me that your pro-market ideology leads you to support what (to me) seems to be more or less wage-fixing for a labor supplier (musicians)
    - geodel 6y ago
      > small cartel of massive labels dictating the terms for everyone else Only for those who sign with them. So this brings the question as what's stopping these musicians to make music independently and market using internet along the way avoiding these labels. It is not even the case that music can be listened only via monopolistic mobile app stores. I have used small independent service providers for tax filing, lawn mowing, cleaning and myriad other services by finding at internet. They are not backed by big corporate chains. Why music has to come from big labels.
      - ProofByAccident 6y ago
        > Only for those who sign with them. I think generally the point of cartelization is to make it very challenging NOT to sign with them. Clearly many independent labels can thrive, and I can't imagine that it's impossible for an artist to start their own label. Nevertheless, when eg. sound and recording engineers can be aggressively poached by a major studio it's got to be challenging to go it alone.
xtracto 6y ago
You touch a point that has been discussed ad-nauseam before (I saw it in /. a long time ago): Why should artists be perpetually paid for the 40 hours of work they made? Any normal people, has a pay rate (minimum $0.77 USD/hr where I live). Someone goes to work, works for 8 hours, and gets their 8hr equivalent salary. But then you have "artists" who work to produce their product for say 80 hours, and then they want to be perpetually paid... not only that, they want to be paid enough to live a lifestyle similar to the person that get's paid for 40 hours a week job, for 30 years.
throw_m239339 6y ago
Comments such as yours are why I will not let my music be on Spotify as an artist. It's no different than piracy, the user is just paying Spotify for convenience of not having to search stuff on Soulseek themselves... The fact that slapping some ads on my music on youtube made me earn more than being on Spotify says everything about how bad that deal is for any artist...

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.
  - disgu 6y ago
    And I value the creators of Spotify who create good software and a great infrastructure for the service they're offering. I think we should move away from this sleazy consumer mindset that the creators of Spotify should not be rewarded for the service they're offering.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      are you under the impression that engineers at spotify are currently going hungry and working minimum wages? As developers we are already ridiculously overpaid compared to artists. We are the ones who benefit from the shit salaries that musicians make, which is of course why people on this website don't want to hear anything about creators bargaining. It's the people here who benefit from the status quo.
      - pietrovismara 6y ago
        > We are the ones who benefit from the shit salaries that musicians make Not really. We are just being paid enough so that we do not leave for somewhere else. The ones who really benefit are the shareholders. Coincidentally, the same people who didn't do any of the work.
        bengale 6y ago
        >The ones who really benefit are the shareholders. Coincidentally, the same people who didn't do any of the work. This is how capitalism works though. There's no way Spotify can be expected to fundamentally change the economic system they exist in. Reversing that is heading into the realm of revolution.
efsavage 6y ago
My scenario is not one of power imbalance, it is that I simply cannot create enough economic value doing it to make a living, and I have no right to change anyone else's rules to accommodate for that fact. I cannot make you a bookshelf cheaper than you can buy one at IKEA. At my software developer rate a Billy Bookcase would cost you $1000. It's probably safe to say you aren't going to "stop whining" and pay that. But you know what I did last week? I didn't mope around at some job I hate complaining about "Big Furniture". I made a bookcase. I also wrote a bunch of software. I can call myself a woodworker, I paid my mortgage, and IKEA sold thousands of Billy Bookcases. All is good.
- ProofByAccident 6y ago
  Your example is a little specious in that a bookcase is very different from a song. The production of one has huge economies of scale, whereas a song doesn't. I agree that producing things competitively is important to improve overall efficiency, but with the music industry you really have a small cartel of massive labels dictating the terms for everyone else (ie. engaging in massively anti-competitive behavior). It seems weird to me that your pro-market ideology leads you to support what (to me) seems to be more or less wage-fixing for a labor supplier (musicians)
  - geodel 6y ago
    > small cartel of massive labels dictating the terms for everyone else Only for those who sign with them. So this brings the question as what's stopping these musicians to make music independently and market using internet along the way avoiding these labels. It is not even the case that music can be listened only via monopolistic mobile app stores. I have used small independent service providers for tax filing, lawn mowing, cleaning and myriad other services by finding at internet. They are not backed by big corporate chains. Why music has to come from big labels.
    - ProofByAccident 6y ago
      > Only for those who sign with them. I think generally the point of cartelization is to make it very challenging NOT to sign with them. Clearly many independent labels can thrive, and I can't imagine that it's impossible for an artist to start their own label. Nevertheless, when eg. sound and recording engineers can be aggressively poached by a major studio it's got to be challenging to go it alone.

xtracto 6y ago

You touch a point that has been discussed ad-nauseam before (I saw it in /. a long time ago): Why should artists be perpetually paid for the 40 hours of work they made? Any normal people, has a pay rate (minimum $0.77 USD/hr where I live). Someone goes to work, works for 8 hours, and gets their 8hr equivalent salary. But then you have "artists" who work to produce their product for say 80 hours, and then they want to be perpetually paid... not only that, they want to be paid enough to live a lifestyle similar to the person that get's paid for 40 hours a week job, for 30 years.

throw_m239339 6y ago

Comments such as yours are why I will not let my music be on Spotify as an artist. It's no different than piracy, the user is just paying Spotify for convenience of not having to search stuff on Soulseek themselves... The fact that slapping some ads on my music on youtube made me earn more than being on Spotify says everything about how bad that deal is for any artist...