4 ms·

The fact that they're showing up at Spotify's offices then shows even more why they're not making money. They seemingly don't understand the business they're in

by disgu 6y ago

The fact that they're showing up at Spotify's offices then shows even more why they're not making money. They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing".

core-questions 6y ago
> They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. Do you know any musicians? Like, real musicians, for whom music is their life and their life's work, not dabblers? Typically these are not shrewd business types. They don't hold a lot of negotiating power; if they're lucky enough to get a chance with a label deal they often don't push back on the terms very much at all. Labels are notoriously predatory in this regard, particularly mainstream large companies. All they want is a fair shake. They see themselves and their fellow artists being screwed continually, while people that have nothing to do with their hard work, long nights, and passionate effort make money off their backs. For every artist that learns, there are ten more willing to take their place just for a tiny sliver of a chance at popularity. The solution here is to do whatever we want to continue the slow work towards destroying mainstream labels. Indie labels still offer a reasonable value proposition in terms of the promotion and recording work they do in exchange for a share of the proceeds; mainstream labels don't. Like most media industries, they're headed by parenthetical elites, cosmopolitan types who have no loyalty to anything but profit, and will squeeze out every drop no matter the impact to the actual working artists. Fuck 'em. Don't listen to mainstream music. Support indie artists and labels; buy direct wherever possible. If anything, the protest should be to make it trivial to directly host your music with Spotify for a nominal hosting fee, so that all revenue can go direct to the artist, rather than having to go through a 3rd party service.
- RHSman2 6y ago
  Think you got down voted as you were actually caring about people and not discussing the ins and outs of tech and pricing structure theory. #sadness
afavour 6y ago
> They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing". I guess that's what you have to do when you're powerless. Record labels force you into shitty contracts. They have the power. Who has power over the record labels? Spotify.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  >Who has power over the record labels? Spotify. What power does Spotify have over record labels?
  - tschwimmer 6y ago
    Distribution tends to be the hardest part of any supply chain and it doesn't seem like music is any different. Spotify owns distribution and has almost no competitors anymore (either online or offline) and the future is very clearly streaming. So the labels will end up depending on Spotify for revenue. In 2018, streaming revenue accounted for half of all label revenue[0], and that will only increase. [0] https://mashable.com/article/major-music-labels-19-million-per-day-streaming/ https://mashable.com/article/major-music-labels-19-million-p...
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      >Spotify owns distribution and has almost no competitors anymore According to the statistics I have, Spotify has 34% market share while Apple Music has 21%, Amazon Music has 15% and others have 30%. That's hardly "no competitors".
    - Orphis 6y ago
      Spotify doesn't own any distribution. The labels do, and they could just not renew their contract and move to a competitor's service at a whim, destroying the company (who wants a service where 1/3 of the artists are not available?). They have the biggest share currently, but they're never safe.
lux 6y ago
Unsigned artists don't sign anything with labels but we do agree to Spotify's terms, and those terms take from us and hand it over to major labels. If a user pays $10/mo and listens to nothing but indie streams, those indies are getting far less than $7.50 (more like pennies) due to the way they calculate their payouts. The major labels pocket the majority of that money. Spotify have the ability to change this, but not the will to do so, because the major labels own a stake in them. Soundcloud recently launched a payment model that matches pretty much exactly what indies are asking Spotify to do, so we know it's possible but Spotify have been stonewalling indies about how it's too complicated for years.
- weddpros 6y ago
  "due to the way they calculate their payouts": yes, I'm sure that's the real issue, but the solution isn't a penny per stream. The solution is definitely to redistribute money according to what people listen to, but I doubt the big labels will accept these terms: they are the ones who negotiated, they are the ones stealing from indies. Best case scenario: indies will get enough pennies so they stop complaining, big labels will continue as today, Spotify will allocate some of its own money to music creation... and the problem will remain unfixed at the roots. remember who forced Spotify and others before it, to negotiate a deal at all cost with the Majors or be declared illegal?
  - lux 6y ago
    I totally agree, the penny per stream focuses entirely on the wrong thing, further entrenching the real issue by derailing the whole discussion. It also makes it less likely the real issue will be taken as seriously later on after we've just "cried wolf" over this one. On the plus side, services like Soundcloud and Deezer are adopting the payment scheme that is the solution to this, which opens a potentially more promising avenue through which to pursue the issue ("if they can do it, why can't you?").
- paxys 6y ago
  If you are an indie artist (no record label deals) and agree to Spotify's terms, how are major labels involved at all? How are they getting the payouts meant for you?

by disgu 6y ago

core-questions 6y ago

> They seemingly don't understand the business they're in... at all. Do you know any musicians? Like, real musicians, for whom music is their life and their life's work, not dabblers? Typically these are not shrewd business types. They don't hold a lot of negotiating power; if they're lucky enough to get a chance with a label deal they often don't push back on the terms very much at all. Labels are notoriously predatory in this regard, particularly mainstream large companies. All they want is a fair shake. They see themselves and their fellow artists being screwed continually, while people that have nothing to do with their hard work, long nights, and passionate effort make money off their backs. For every artist that learns, there are ten more willing to take their place just for a tiny sliver of a chance at popularity. The solution here is to do whatever we want to continue the slow work towards destroying mainstream labels. Indie labels still offer a reasonable value proposition in terms of the promotion and recording work they do in exchange for a share of the proceeds; mainstream labels don't. Like most media industries, they're headed by parenthetical elites, cosmopolitan types who have no loyalty to anything but profit, and will squeeze out every drop no matter the impact to the actual working artists. Fuck 'em. Don't listen to mainstream music. Support indie artists and labels; buy direct wherever possible. If anything, the protest should be to make it trivial to directly host your music with Spotify for a nominal hosting fee, so that all revenue can go direct to the artist, rather than having to go through a 3rd party service.

RHSman2 6y ago
Think you got down voted as you were actually caring about people and not discussing the ins and outs of tech and pricing structure theory. #sadness

afavour 6y ago

> They sign shitty contracts that leave them with "virtually nothing" and then complain to someone who is not responsible for them having "virtually nothing". I guess that's what you have to do when you're powerless. Record labels force you into shitty contracts. They have the power. Who has power over the record labels? Spotify.

Hamuko 6y ago
>Who has power over the record labels? Spotify. What power does Spotify have over record labels?
- tschwimmer 6y ago
  Distribution tends to be the hardest part of any supply chain and it doesn't seem like music is any different. Spotify owns distribution and has almost no competitors anymore (either online or offline) and the future is very clearly streaming. So the labels will end up depending on Spotify for revenue. In 2018, streaming revenue accounted for half of all label revenue[0], and that will only increase. [0] https://mashable.com/article/major-music-labels-19-million-per-day-streaming/ https://mashable.com/article/major-music-labels-19-million-p...
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    >Spotify owns distribution and has almost no competitors anymore According to the statistics I have, Spotify has 34% market share while Apple Music has 21%, Amazon Music has 15% and others have 30%. That's hardly "no competitors".
  - Orphis 6y ago
    Spotify doesn't own any distribution. The labels do, and they could just not renew their contract and move to a competitor's service at a whim, destroying the company (who wants a service where 1/3 of the artists are not available?). They have the biggest share currently, but they're never safe.

lux 6y ago

Unsigned artists don't sign anything with labels but we do agree to Spotify's terms, and those terms take from us and hand it over to major labels. If a user pays $10/mo and listens to nothing but indie streams, those indies are getting far less than $7.50 (more like pennies) due to the way they calculate their payouts. The major labels pocket the majority of that money. Spotify have the ability to change this, but not the will to do so, because the major labels own a stake in them. Soundcloud recently launched a payment model that matches pretty much exactly what indies are asking Spotify to do, so we know it's possible but Spotify have been stonewalling indies about how it's too complicated for years.

weddpros 6y ago
"due to the way they calculate their payouts": yes, I'm sure that's the real issue, but the solution isn't a penny per stream. The solution is definitely to redistribute money according to what people listen to, but I doubt the big labels will accept these terms: they are the ones who negotiated, they are the ones stealing from indies. Best case scenario: indies will get enough pennies so they stop complaining, big labels will continue as today, Spotify will allocate some of its own money to music creation... and the problem will remain unfixed at the roots. remember who forced Spotify and others before it, to negotiate a deal at all cost with the Majors or be declared illegal?
- lux 6y ago
  I totally agree, the penny per stream focuses entirely on the wrong thing, further entrenching the real issue by derailing the whole discussion. It also makes it less likely the real issue will be taken as seriously later on after we've just "cried wolf" over this one. On the plus side, services like Soundcloud and Deezer are adopting the payment scheme that is the solution to this, which opens a potentially more promising avenue through which to pursue the issue ("if they can do it, why can't you?").
paxys 6y ago
If you are an indie artist (no record label deals) and agree to Spotify's terms, how are major labels involved at all? How are they getting the payouts meant for you?