3 ms·

> People hearing your music is nice and all As a listener, this is my entire concern, use case, and reason for paying for a streaming site: finding new music t

by nomel 3y ago

> People hearing your music is nice and all As a listener, this is my entire concern, use case, and reason for paying for a streaming site: finding new music to listen to. I don't think I'm unique. Artists should get more, which is why I pay for Spotify Premium, but the use case of a listener is important. Bandcamp doesn't address that, for me.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
There is more music on Bandcamp than you could listen to in a lifetime. More comes out in a week than you could (probably) listen to in a week. So when you sayd "finding new music to listen to", there's a hidden implication in there: you want to find new music that is on Spotify (which in turn implies things like major labels, artists seeking or expecting breakout etc. Bandcamp is an amazing resource for discovering new music, but a subset of all new music, just as Spotify is. It's fine to say you prefer what you can find on Spotify, just don't make the claim that Bandcamp somehow isn't up for this general task.
- nomel 3y ago
  I'll rephrase: I don't want to find the music. I want recommendation of music that I might like. I want a mostly passive experience, where I can click a like button to get more like that, added to feed. I don't want to actively search, because I'm doing other things when I listen to music. If I find a song that interests me, I'll listen to the songs "radio" to find similar artists. This is an acceptable use pattern. > which in turn implies things like major labels, artists seeking or expecting breakout etc. This is nonsensical [1]. I follow YouTubers have their music on Spotify. Some are just spoof songs. [1] https://artists.spotify.com/en/get-started https://artists.spotify.com/en/get-started
- jmye 3y ago
  I’m unaware of anything on Bandcamp that is remotely as useful to me as the auto-built playlists and artist/song radio tools in Spotify. That there’s “a lot” of music on either platform is meaningless if the tools to find things I’d like don’t work for me. I get the compensation model sucks for artists. I try to buy things from bands I like. But ultimately, if artists don’t like the Spotify model, they should pull their music - but I’m going to continue to use a platform that gives me access to everything I’d ever want to hear for like, $10/mo.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > but I’m going to continue to use a platform that gives me access to everything I’d ever want to hear for like, $10/mo. I'm going to continue to use a platform that can only cost as little as it does because the people who create the art that motivates the entire existence of the platform get paid essentially nothing well, uh, bravo, I guess.
    - jmye 3y ago
      Then they should pull their music. You know, the part I said that you cut off so you could what, poorly paraphrase my position as negatively as possible? To what end? Was your day that bad that you needed to make someone else look little to feel better about it? But uh, bravo, I guess.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    I think the auto-built playlists are bad. Not only because they slip in something jarring, but even the "This is..." playlists can't be trusted. They often mix artists with the same name who have nothing to do with each other. No, I think it's for active discovery Spotify is good. I have never enjoyed everything on the Discover weekly playlist, quite often it contains stuff that makes me ask "why did you even think I would like that crap, Spotify". But when it hits, it hits amazingly well.
    - Applejinx 3y ago
      And yet you're listening to Spotify, still, instead of 'albums you bought'. This is really the point. It's not new: radio was the previous way to have music discovery for 'free', or at least unmetered, with its own costs and issues. If Spotify made no pretense that it even attempted to pay rights holders anything it'd probably fit its role even better, but it actively tries to supplant the whole concept of having to buy or own albums or music at all. It's designed to be what you have INSTEAD of buying music. When it hits, you don't need to buy music. The music MAKERS might need you to buy their music, but Spotify is for helping you ignore that. Heh. How about an ad-supported Spotify, except literally all the ads are for bands and live gigs and music? Bring payola to Spotify. You never pay for it, but you get radio levels of interstitials and they are all from music producers trying to sell their album or single, all for literal music. Albums used to get late-night TV ads and label promotion…
- vintermann 3y ago
  I have not been able to use Bandcamp to discover music. Even for music in niches that are so tiny that they're not on Spotify, I didn't find them on Bandcamp (I found them on YouTube). Bandcamp's recommendations for me are lousy.
waveBidder 3y ago
does Spotify pay artists more for listens on premium? I seriously doubt it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nomel 3y ago
  All the revenue goes into a big pot, then split up [1]. That pot is 95% premium users [2]. [1] https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ [2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/spotify-makes-internet-music-make-money.asp#:~:text=Spotify%20Segment%20Breakdown%3A%20Revenue%3A%20Premium,%2DSupported%20Services%2C%205%25 https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/spoti....
  - vintermann 3y ago
    It's separate pots for ad listens vs. subscriber listens. AFAIK there are also separate pots by country, since subscription fees and profitability of ad markets vary widely by country.
    - nomel 3y ago
      Do you have a reference for this? If the pots are different, what's the practical difference, when the majority of the profits, and payout, comes from premium?
- vintermann 3y ago
  This is easy to check. Yes, premium listens are pooled separately from ad-supported listens. If an artist is extremely popular with ad-supported listeners, that doesn't let them eat into the pool of payments from premium listeners. Note, however, that listens are pooled by country, not per user. So premium accounts running background music in a hair salon 6 days a week will decide where your subscription money goes far more than the music you listen to. Originally, this was because the big record companies demanded it. Now, the record companies are having second thoughts, but Spotify, which has adapted to the funding key favouring background music, are the ones resisting.

by nomel 3y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

There is more music on Bandcamp than you could listen to in a lifetime. More comes out in a week than you could (probably) listen to in a week. So when you sayd "finding new music to listen to", there's a hidden implication in there: you want to find new music that is on Spotify (which in turn implies things like major labels, artists seeking or expecting breakout etc. Bandcamp is an amazing resource for discovering new music, but a subset of all new music, just as Spotify is. It's fine to say you prefer what you can find on Spotify, just don't make the claim that Bandcamp somehow isn't up for this general task.

nomel 3y ago
I'll rephrase: I don't want to find the music. I want recommendation of music that I might like. I want a mostly passive experience, where I can click a like button to get more like that, added to feed. I don't want to actively search, because I'm doing other things when I listen to music. If I find a song that interests me, I'll listen to the songs "radio" to find similar artists. This is an acceptable use pattern. > which in turn implies things like major labels, artists seeking or expecting breakout etc. This is nonsensical [1]. I follow YouTubers have their music on Spotify. Some are just spoof songs. [1] https://artists.spotify.com/en/get-started https://artists.spotify.com/en/get-started
jmye 3y ago
I’m unaware of anything on Bandcamp that is remotely as useful to me as the auto-built playlists and artist/song radio tools in Spotify. That there’s “a lot” of music on either platform is meaningless if the tools to find things I’d like don’t work for me. I get the compensation model sucks for artists. I try to buy things from bands I like. But ultimately, if artists don’t like the Spotify model, they should pull their music - but I’m going to continue to use a platform that gives me access to everything I’d ever want to hear for like, $10/mo.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > but I’m going to continue to use a platform that gives me access to everything I’d ever want to hear for like, $10/mo. I'm going to continue to use a platform that can only cost as little as it does because the people who create the art that motivates the entire existence of the platform get paid essentially nothing well, uh, bravo, I guess.
  - jmye 3y ago
    Then they should pull their music. You know, the part I said that you cut off so you could what, poorly paraphrase my position as negatively as possible? To what end? Was your day that bad that you needed to make someone else look little to feel better about it? But uh, bravo, I guess.
- vintermann 3y ago
  I think the auto-built playlists are bad. Not only because they slip in something jarring, but even the "This is..." playlists can't be trusted. They often mix artists with the same name who have nothing to do with each other. No, I think it's for active discovery Spotify is good. I have never enjoyed everything on the Discover weekly playlist, quite often it contains stuff that makes me ask "why did you even think I would like that crap, Spotify". But when it hits, it hits amazingly well.
  - Applejinx 3y ago
    And yet you're listening to Spotify, still, instead of 'albums you bought'. This is really the point. It's not new: radio was the previous way to have music discovery for 'free', or at least unmetered, with its own costs and issues. If Spotify made no pretense that it even attempted to pay rights holders anything it'd probably fit its role even better, but it actively tries to supplant the whole concept of having to buy or own albums or music at all. It's designed to be what you have INSTEAD of buying music. When it hits, you don't need to buy music. The music MAKERS might need you to buy their music, but Spotify is for helping you ignore that. Heh. How about an ad-supported Spotify, except literally all the ads are for bands and live gigs and music? Bring payola to Spotify. You never pay for it, but you get radio levels of interstitials and they are all from music producers trying to sell their album or single, all for literal music. Albums used to get late-night TV ads and label promotion…
vintermann 3y ago
I have not been able to use Bandcamp to discover music. Even for music in niches that are so tiny that they're not on Spotify, I didn't find them on Bandcamp (I found them on YouTube). Bandcamp's recommendations for me are lousy.

waveBidder 3y ago

does Spotify pay artists more for listens on premium? I seriously doubt it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nomel 3y ago
All the revenue goes into a big pot, then split up [1]. That pot is 95% premium users [2]. [1] https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/ [2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/spotify-makes-internet-music-make-money.asp#:~:text=Spotify%20Segment%20Breakdown%3A%20Revenue%3A%20Premium,%2DSupported%20Services%2C%205%25 https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/spoti....
- vintermann 3y ago
  It's separate pots for ad listens vs. subscriber listens. AFAIK there are also separate pots by country, since subscription fees and profitability of ad markets vary widely by country.
  - nomel 3y ago
    Do you have a reference for this? If the pots are different, what's the practical difference, when the majority of the profits, and payout, comes from premium?
vintermann 3y ago
This is easy to check. Yes, premium listens are pooled separately from ad-supported listens. If an artist is extremely popular with ad-supported listeners, that doesn't let them eat into the pool of payments from premium listeners. Note, however, that listens are pooled by country, not per user. So premium accounts running background music in a hair salon 6 days a week will decide where your subscription money goes far more than the music you listen to. Originally, this was because the big record companies demanded it. Now, the record companies are having second thoughts, but Spotify, which has adapted to the funding key favouring background music, are the ones resisting.