5 ms·

The hard truth in music (and in many creative industries) is that there's a huge oversupply (many musicians are willing to make music for free or very cheap) an

The hard truth in music (and in many creative industries) is that there's a huge oversupply (many musicians are willing to make music for free or very cheap) and demand has a low willingness to pay. The result is that there isn't much money to be made for musicians. In my mind, there's really no way around this fact. You can argue (as these folks are) that Spotify could take a smaller cut and give more to musicians. While this is technically true, Spotify is never going to do this. It's a strictly distributive transaction: musicians make more money, Spotify makes less. Their other options are not so good either. Musicians can build a Spotify clone that's more favorable to artists. Nominally, this sounds like Tidal. The problem with Tidal is that nobody wants to spend that much money on a subscription. Even with the high profile artist exclusives it has less than 5% market share. Beyond the business model, building a Spotify clone is difficult to execute, especially for musicians and not software folks. You can somehow lobby to outlaw streaming and go back to selling songs and albums individually. This would definitely hurt Spotify but probably doesn't help musicians too much. Potentially the top 1% of musicians are better off as they're able to capture more value but the long tail is way worse as nobody discovers their music anymore. An interesting solution might be collective action. If enough musicians banded together and pulled their catalogs from Spotify, I could see that having a big negative impact on Spotify's revenue. There are a few bands that if their catalogs were off Spotify, I'd probably cancel. This would be effective but is probably too difficult to coordinate. Overall, the problem for musicians is one of economics. Too many people willing to make music, not enough willing to pay. In other words, you can't push a rope. If you are a musician, my strong advice to you is to get comfortable with doing it for a reason other than money. Otherwise, you're in for inevitable disappointment.

herbturbo 6y ago
Yeah I think it's easy for up and coming musicians to blame Spotify for their financial woes, but as someone who was an aspiring musician in the 90s I can tell you it was no picnic back then. Everyone I knew was broke, so the only way to make a record was to get signed, and that involved playing shows in front of A&R people which meant finding venues etc - all on your own dime. If you did manage to get signed and get an advance, you probably used it to buy better instruments and maybe pay rent for a month or two but it didn't last long. Then if you were lucky and the label decided to distribute your stuff, you'd make about a dollar between you for every full length album you sold. Music has never been about making money. You might as well play the lottery if that's your goal. And as a consumer of music, I am very happy to be paying $14.99 a month for access to a collection that would have been virtually impossible for an individual to assemble 20 years ago. Music has been opened up to people in a way that did not exist before Spotify. Also, a good deal of the music I listen to is stuff I had already bought on CD or vinyl years before, so those artists are getting paid twice for me listening now. Bottom line is it's always been hard to break through into making money from music. Nothing has changed except the way it's distributed.
- dimgl 6y ago
  I realize this is tangential, but I'm currently making a video game. Is the video game industry similar? I worry that I won't get much return on my investment...
  - mortenjorck 6y ago
    Gaming, even indie gaming, follows a power law just like everything else: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/04/ars-analysis-80-of-steam-games-earn-under-5k-in-first-two-weeks/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/04/ars-analysis-80-of-st...
  - cwkoss 6y ago
    Yes it is similar, but the smaller indie studio model is much more viable than it was a decade or two ago, particularly for unique games that find deep popularity with a small niche. (See Factorio, Dyson Sphere Program, Coffee Stain Studios) I think independent video game dev is good for people who want to write the game anyways, and want to monetize to allow them to keep working on it. But, it is very unlikely to make you significant wealth.
- retox 6y ago
  It upset me to hear that Fabian Sanglard only makes 77c per copy of his Doom book, and $2 per Wolfenstein book https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbdoom/ https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbdoom/ https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbwolf3d/index.html https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbwolf3d/index.html
paxys 6y ago
Exactly this. You could remove 98% of music from Spotify and people would still gladly keep paying the $10/mo because they are there for Drake and Taylor Swift.
- herbturbo 6y ago
  Right - and how did Drake and Taylor Swift rise to that level? Same way Madonna and Michael Jackson did. Getting radio play and touring, which took a record label. Getting people to actually give a shit about your music is a problem Spotify isn't going to solve for unknown artists.
nvarsj 6y ago
I don't think it's as simple as supply and demand as you suggest. The behavior of record companies and distributors is completely atrocious in the music industry. It's monopolist behavior, and it completely distorts the actual market. If artists got the majority of royalties from each play of their song, things would be substantially different.
ksec 6y ago
>Overall, the problem for musicians is one of economics. Too many people willing to make music, not enough willing to pay. Exactly. And we have finite amount of time and attention. Just like the head of Premiere League in UK said E-Sport ( Gaming ) and other entertainment like Netflix are their competitors. And we have less time for music. It is not only an abundance of music, but also in other entertainment. K-POP essentially made their music and MV for free on YouTube. While making money on tours, merchandise, and show appearance. I sympathies for them. But their problem has nothing to do with Spotify at all.
- analog31 6y ago
  Microsoft inadvertently played a similar game in the 80s and 90s, by having multiple price tiers for similar products in different markets. You could buy Office at a computer store for $200, or get it bundled with a new computer for $20, or for "free" by copying the disks from someone. (Don't remember the exact prices). Then there were "upgrade" tiers and an academic discount. The free tier made it impossible for anybody to compete with them, thus protecting their market in the paid tier. They even tried competing with themselves, via "Microsoft Works," and gave up. Creative works are a very strange market, because they don't fit any semblance of a demand curve. For instance, there's no such thing as a song that's slightly cheaper than a Taylor Swift hit, with slightly higher sales. You can't compete with Taylor Swift on a price/demand curve. Also, you can't compete with free. There's still a bit of a demand curve for live music. For instance you can pay less to hear my band than to hear Taylor Swift. This may actually be why playing live is still a better economic deal for most rank-and-file musicians. It's one reason why I'm presently un-recorded. I have no need to know how much my music is loved by people who think I don't deserve to get paid.
  - ksec 6y ago
    > For instance, there's no such thing as a song that's slightly cheaper than a Taylor Swift hit, with slightly higher sales. You can't compete with Taylor Swift on a price/demand curve. Also, you can't compete with free. Thank You. I need to copy this down in my book.
nerdponx 6y ago
That's not the issue here. The issue is that "number of listens" is not correlated with "payouts from Spotify", even if we ignore the record labels taking their cut.

herbturbo 6y ago

Yeah I think it's easy for up and coming musicians to blame Spotify for their financial woes, but as someone who was an aspiring musician in the 90s I can tell you it was no picnic back then. Everyone I knew was broke, so the only way to make a record was to get signed, and that involved playing shows in front of A&R people which meant finding venues etc - all on your own dime. If you did manage to get signed and get an advance, you probably used it to buy better instruments and maybe pay rent for a month or two but it didn't last long. Then if you were lucky and the label decided to distribute your stuff, you'd make about a dollar between you for every full length album you sold. Music has never been about making money. You might as well play the lottery if that's your goal. And as a consumer of music, I am very happy to be paying $14.99 a month for access to a collection that would have been virtually impossible for an individual to assemble 20 years ago. Music has been opened up to people in a way that did not exist before Spotify. Also, a good deal of the music I listen to is stuff I had already bought on CD or vinyl years before, so those artists are getting paid twice for me listening now. Bottom line is it's always been hard to break through into making money from music. Nothing has changed except the way it's distributed.

dimgl 6y ago
I realize this is tangential, but I'm currently making a video game. Is the video game industry similar? I worry that I won't get much return on my investment...
- mortenjorck 6y ago
  Gaming, even indie gaming, follows a power law just like everything else: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/04/ars-analysis-80-of-steam-games-earn-under-5k-in-first-two-weeks/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/04/ars-analysis-80-of-st...
- cwkoss 6y ago
  Yes it is similar, but the smaller indie studio model is much more viable than it was a decade or two ago, particularly for unique games that find deep popularity with a small niche. (See Factorio, Dyson Sphere Program, Coffee Stain Studios) I think independent video game dev is good for people who want to write the game anyways, and want to monetize to allow them to keep working on it. But, it is very unlikely to make you significant wealth.
retox 6y ago
It upset me to hear that Fabian Sanglard only makes 77c per copy of his Doom book, and $2 per Wolfenstein book https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbdoom/ https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbdoom/ https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbwolf3d/index.html https://fabiensanglard.net/gebbwolf3d/index.html

paxys 6y ago

Exactly this. You could remove 98% of music from Spotify and people would still gladly keep paying the $10/mo because they are there for Drake and Taylor Swift.

herbturbo 6y ago
Right - and how did Drake and Taylor Swift rise to that level? Same way Madonna and Michael Jackson did. Getting radio play and touring, which took a record label. Getting people to actually give a shit about your music is a problem Spotify isn't going to solve for unknown artists.

nvarsj 6y ago

I don't think it's as simple as supply and demand as you suggest. The behavior of record companies and distributors is completely atrocious in the music industry. It's monopolist behavior, and it completely distorts the actual market. If artists got the majority of royalties from each play of their song, things would be substantially different.

ksec 6y ago

>Overall, the problem for musicians is one of economics. Too many people willing to make music, not enough willing to pay. Exactly. And we have finite amount of time and attention. Just like the head of Premiere League in UK said E-Sport ( Gaming ) and other entertainment like Netflix are their competitors. And we have less time for music. It is not only an abundance of music, but also in other entertainment. K-POP essentially made their music and MV for free on YouTube. While making money on tours, merchandise, and show appearance. I sympathies for them. But their problem has nothing to do with Spotify at all.

analog31 6y ago
Microsoft inadvertently played a similar game in the 80s and 90s, by having multiple price tiers for similar products in different markets. You could buy Office at a computer store for $200, or get it bundled with a new computer for $20, or for "free" by copying the disks from someone. (Don't remember the exact prices). Then there were "upgrade" tiers and an academic discount. The free tier made it impossible for anybody to compete with them, thus protecting their market in the paid tier. They even tried competing with themselves, via "Microsoft Works," and gave up. Creative works are a very strange market, because they don't fit any semblance of a demand curve. For instance, there's no such thing as a song that's slightly cheaper than a Taylor Swift hit, with slightly higher sales. You can't compete with Taylor Swift on a price/demand curve. Also, you can't compete with free. There's still a bit of a demand curve for live music. For instance you can pay less to hear my band than to hear Taylor Swift. This may actually be why playing live is still a better economic deal for most rank-and-file musicians. It's one reason why I'm presently un-recorded. I have no need to know how much my music is loved by people who think I don't deserve to get paid.
- ksec 6y ago
  > For instance, there's no such thing as a song that's slightly cheaper than a Taylor Swift hit, with slightly higher sales. You can't compete with Taylor Swift on a price/demand curve. Also, you can't compete with free. Thank You. I need to copy this down in my book.

nerdponx 6y ago

That's not the issue here. The issue is that "number of listens" is not correlated with "payouts from Spotify", even if we ignore the record labels taking their cut.