5 ms·

From a different article: Not 3 cents, a third of one penny per stream. By that metric, Weird Al would have earned a little more than $12, more like $350,000 b

by ikt 3y ago

From a different article: Not 3 cents, a third of one penny per stream. By that metric, Weird Al would have earned a little more than $12, more like $350,000 but his point stands. https://gizmodo.com/weird-al-spotify-wrapped-artist-pay-1851059636 https://gizmodo.com/weird-al-spotify-wrapped-artist-pay-1851...

jkubicek 3y ago
If that's how much he earns, I'm not sure his point does stand. If he's making $350k from Spotify, I'm guessing he makes about that much from all the other streaming services combined. $700k in income from what is essentially an advertisement for your tours and merch feels like a pretty good deal.
- jjulius 3y ago
  $700k regardless is a good chunk of cash, but can you blame an artist for asking, "Whoa what the fuck?" if that's still a lot less than they would've made in a time before Spotify existed?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - steve1977 3y ago
    Is it though? Someone might listen to your tracks on Spotify because it’s included in the flat rate, but would have never bought a CD or record of you. And then those records had production costs and needed to be put in stores etc. Yes, at the peak of CDs, there was more money to be made. But I’m not sure if the difference is really that big.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      >Is it though? >But I’m not sure if the difference is really that big. I'm struggling to understand why so many musicians - countless numbers, from nearly every genre, with all different sizes of fan bases - have been complaining about Spotify reducing their income if the difference wasn't "really that big".
      - steve1977 3y ago
        I am a musician (ambitious amateur) with some tracks online and I also had a record contract in the 90s. I earn more today. Which is still very little, but it’s more than with CDs. Would I like to earn more? Sure! But I can’t see that happening with all the competition in the entertainment space today. Mind you, people have many more places where they can spend their money now, so it’s not only music business today vs music business 30 years ago, but also music business vs gaming vs movie and tv show streaming etc.
        jjulius 3y ago
        >I am a musician (ambitious amateur) with some tracks online and I also had a record contract in the 90s. I earn more today. Which is still very little, but it’s more than with CDs. Interesting! I'm also a musician, though mostly just for the fun of it (but I do love whenever I get the chance to play out!) and have been heavily active in my local scene for a few decades, and my anecdotal experience with other musicians who actually try and eke out some cash from it seems to differ from yours, and I've heard nothing but complaints. But that's anecdata for ya! Glad you're seeing the opposite effect! >But I can’t see that happening with all the competition in the entertainment space today. This has been a point I've been making with my music friends for some time now. A common argument you see is that, well, I put work into making this, it deserves to be listened to/looked at and I should be compensated for it. I just don't understand how people can take that perspective when you step back and realize that there is more art being made than there are eyes or ears for it all.
  - ryathal 3y ago
    The only reason they would have made more is reduced competition. Streaming allows historical catalogs to be infinitely available, and vastly lowers the bar for smaller musicians to add their music to the catalog. There's also more foreign music available then ever before. The supply of music is vastly increased thanks to streaming, but demand really can't increase, so obviously the price is going to fall.
- MrJohz 3y ago
  It's not income directly for him, it's paid to his label, and that label will take their own cut. My impression is that the label takes the largest cut of all the people involved, but I'm happy to be corrected on that.
  - littlecranky67 3y ago
    Not to forget that Weird Al is doing a lot of covers - so he is not the original composer of the song. Performers usually get paid way less (everybody can perform a cover of any song out there), but the composers get paid the lion share. I also doubt he gets $12 but probably lot more, the video is just intended to draw attention to Spotify's payout schemes.
    - floor2 3y ago
      Weird Al does not do covers. His albums are a mixture of parodies and fully original pieces. The parodies often use the same melody as the source work, but with original lyrics. Sometimes the music is itself parodied, and performed using an accordian or some other unique instrument. In terms of creativity, artistic vision, lyrical difficulty or any other metric, Weird Al should be understood as an incredibly talented musician.
      - dagw 3y ago
        Sometimes the music is itself parodied, and performed using an accordian or some other unique instrument. For this conversation, that is completely irrelevant and he still has to pay royalties to the original composer. Furthermore, while Weird Al does have many completely original songs, looking at his streaming numbers that isn't what most people seem to listen to. The fact that he is both very talented and very creative is both true and irrelevant.
    - erellsworth 3y ago
      Weird Al doesn't do covers, aside from a few exceptions. He does parodies. Parody falls under fair use, so legally I don't think he has to pay royalties, though he may anyway.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  > from what is essentially an advertisement for your tours and merch Isn’t the whole point that this part is not the way it should be?
Arnt 3y ago
That 0.003/stream is paid to the label of the artists with the most advantageous contracts. The label will forward some part of that to the artist, and if the artist has an advantageous contract that may be a large part. But if the label was good at negotiating with Spotify, maybe the label was also good at negotiating with the artists, and the artists's share is capped at $12?
bradley13 3y ago
Sure, but it's not all to keep. He is a business (or his label is). He has personnel expenses, production expenses, studio expenses, expenses, etc.. If he keeps 1/4 of that $350k, he's doing well. Multiply by a small number, maybe 3 or 4, to account for his other income streams. He's a pretty well-known artist, one of the top X. He ought to be making a good living, and maybe he is - but I doubt he's getting rich.

by ikt 3y ago

jkubicek 3y ago

If that's how much he earns, I'm not sure his point does stand. If he's making $350k from Spotify, I'm guessing he makes about that much from all the other streaming services combined. $700k in income from what is essentially an advertisement for your tours and merch feels like a pretty good deal.

jjulius 3y ago
$700k regardless is a good chunk of cash, but can you blame an artist for asking, "Whoa what the fuck?" if that's still a lot less than they would've made in a time before Spotify existed?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- steve1977 3y ago
  Is it though? Someone might listen to your tracks on Spotify because it’s included in the flat rate, but would have never bought a CD or record of you. And then those records had production costs and needed to be put in stores etc. Yes, at the peak of CDs, there was more money to be made. But I’m not sure if the difference is really that big.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >Is it though? >But I’m not sure if the difference is really that big. I'm struggling to understand why so many musicians - countless numbers, from nearly every genre, with all different sizes of fan bases - have been complaining about Spotify reducing their income if the difference wasn't "really that big".
    - steve1977 3y ago
      I am a musician (ambitious amateur) with some tracks online and I also had a record contract in the 90s. I earn more today. Which is still very little, but it’s more than with CDs. Would I like to earn more? Sure! But I can’t see that happening with all the competition in the entertainment space today. Mind you, people have many more places where they can spend their money now, so it’s not only music business today vs music business 30 years ago, but also music business vs gaming vs movie and tv show streaming etc.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        >I am a musician (ambitious amateur) with some tracks online and I also had a record contract in the 90s. I earn more today. Which is still very little, but it’s more than with CDs. Interesting! I'm also a musician, though mostly just for the fun of it (but I do love whenever I get the chance to play out!) and have been heavily active in my local scene for a few decades, and my anecdotal experience with other musicians who actually try and eke out some cash from it seems to differ from yours, and I've heard nothing but complaints. But that's anecdata for ya! Glad you're seeing the opposite effect! >But I can’t see that happening with all the competition in the entertainment space today. This has been a point I've been making with my music friends for some time now. A common argument you see is that, well, I put work into making this, it deserves to be listened to/looked at and I should be compensated for it. I just don't understand how people can take that perspective when you step back and realize that there is more art being made than there are eyes or ears for it all.
- ryathal 3y ago
  The only reason they would have made more is reduced competition. Streaming allows historical catalogs to be infinitely available, and vastly lowers the bar for smaller musicians to add their music to the catalog. There's also more foreign music available then ever before. The supply of music is vastly increased thanks to streaming, but demand really can't increase, so obviously the price is going to fall.
MrJohz 3y ago
It's not income directly for him, it's paid to his label, and that label will take their own cut. My impression is that the label takes the largest cut of all the people involved, but I'm happy to be corrected on that.
- littlecranky67 3y ago
  Not to forget that Weird Al is doing a lot of covers - so he is not the original composer of the song. Performers usually get paid way less (everybody can perform a cover of any song out there), but the composers get paid the lion share. I also doubt he gets $12 but probably lot more, the video is just intended to draw attention to Spotify's payout schemes.
  - floor2 3y ago
    Weird Al does not do covers. His albums are a mixture of parodies and fully original pieces. The parodies often use the same melody as the source work, but with original lyrics. Sometimes the music is itself parodied, and performed using an accordian or some other unique instrument. In terms of creativity, artistic vision, lyrical difficulty or any other metric, Weird Al should be understood as an incredibly talented musician.
    - dagw 3y ago
      Sometimes the music is itself parodied, and performed using an accordian or some other unique instrument. For this conversation, that is completely irrelevant and he still has to pay royalties to the original composer. Furthermore, while Weird Al does have many completely original songs, looking at his streaming numbers that isn't what most people seem to listen to. The fact that he is both very talented and very creative is both true and irrelevant.
  - erellsworth 3y ago
    Weird Al doesn't do covers, aside from a few exceptions. He does parodies. Parody falls under fair use, so legally I don't think he has to pay royalties, though he may anyway.
pfannkuchen 3y ago
> from what is essentially an advertisement for your tours and merch Isn’t the whole point that this part is not the way it should be?

Arnt 3y ago

That 0.003/stream is paid to the label of the artists with the most advantageous contracts. The label will forward some part of that to the artist, and if the artist has an advantageous contract that may be a large part. But if the label was good at negotiating with Spotify, maybe the label was also good at negotiating with the artists, and the artists's share is capped at $12?

bradley13 3y ago

Sure, but it's not all to keep. He is a business (or his label is). He has personnel expenses, production expenses, studio expenses, expenses, etc.. If he keeps 1/4 of that $350k, he's doing well. Multiply by a small number, maybe 3 or 4, to account for his other income streams. He's a pretty well-known artist, one of the top X. He ought to be making a good living, and maybe he is - but I doubt he's getting rich.