3 ms·

This is true. To the user the cost may stay the same, but the user now receives VASTLY more value for the same spend. They have a seemingly infinite pool of mus

This is true. To the user the cost may stay the same, but the user now receives VASTLY more value for the same spend. They have a seemingly infinite pool of music to listen to. Whereas they would only have 8-10 CDs worth of music for the same amount. At the same time, the artist are now capturing a significantly smaller fraction (think 1%) from that same pool of money. And that's being generous. It takes thousands of streaming listens of an artist for that artist to receive the equivalent of one CD purchase from back in the day. The distribution of value and compensation is massively skewed when it comes to music streaming. Subscribers are getting tremendous upside while the creators are getting massively hosed under the existing model.

christkv 3y ago
It’s obvious that it’s the labels that are the problem. If the artists I listened to in a month got part of my subscription directly they would probably make a decent bit. If I listen to 8 artists maybe as much as a buck. Instead I would be surprised if they got any more that a couple of cents each.
- Slow_Hand 3y ago
  Even if you remove the label from the equation Spotify payouts are nowhere close to being enough to support an artist. 1,000 streams on Spotify nets the artist $2.38 in payouts [0]. For an artist to earn $60,000/year that means that they would have to accumulate roughly 25,000,000 streams on Spotify. And that's assuming that you're a single person with 100% of the publishing and mechanical rights to your record. If you're a band, divide that by the number of band members or songwriters. Less the productions costs, less promotional costs, less expenses for equipment, less your manager's cut, etc. It goes on and on. [0]: https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/ https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/
mlyle 3y ago
> It takes thousands of streaming listens of an artist for that artist to receive the equivalent of one CD purchase from back in the day. In fairness, most artists didn't receive anything from a CD purchase, either, as the costs to make and promote the album are usually deducted from the artist's share of royalties. (Also, said "costs" are often inflated/charged above the label's actual cost).

christkv 3y ago

It’s obvious that it’s the labels that are the problem. If the artists I listened to in a month got part of my subscription directly they would probably make a decent bit. If I listen to 8 artists maybe as much as a buck. Instead I would be surprised if they got any more that a couple of cents each.

Slow_Hand 3y ago
Even if you remove the label from the equation Spotify payouts are nowhere close to being enough to support an artist. 1,000 streams on Spotify nets the artist $2.38 in payouts [0]. For an artist to earn $60,000/year that means that they would have to accumulate roughly 25,000,000 streams on Spotify. And that's assuming that you're a single person with 100% of the publishing and mechanical rights to your record. If you're a band, divide that by the number of band members or songwriters. Less the productions costs, less promotional costs, less expenses for equipment, less your manager's cut, etc. It goes on and on. [0]: https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/ https://soundcamps.com/spotify-royalties-calculator/

mlyle 3y ago

> It takes thousands of streaming listens of an artist for that artist to receive the equivalent of one CD purchase from back in the day. In fairness, most artists didn't receive anything from a CD purchase, either, as the costs to make and promote the album are usually deducted from the artist's share of royalties. (Also, said "costs" are often inflated/charged above the label's actual cost).