7 ms·

YouTube pays less per stream to the rights holders than Spotify, however.

by gnfargbl 3y ago

bayindirh 3y ago
I don't know the numbers. What I was trying to point out that there's no nefariousness going on.
- jsnell 3y ago
  No, you weren't just pointing that out. You claimed that it is "arguably still providing income for the musicians". How is it arguably providing income for tyhe artists given the app is obviously not playing ads?
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    First of all, the tool’s description doesn’t say anything about ads. Second, I’m neither the developer, nor user of the app. Third, I didn’t say definitely, but arguably. I might be wrong, but I’m not endorsing anything here. Lastly, I’m an ex-musician, too and prefer to pay for premium and buy proper albums when I can. So pointing fingers doesn’t do any favor to anyone. Have a nice day.
unnamed76ri 3y ago
I don’t know where you get your info but Spotify just effectively demonetized the majority of music on their platform. They’ve decided they have the right to just stop paying small time artists so they can funnel more money upwards to the record labels.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Sources please?
  - erinnh 3y ago
    https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-minimum-impact/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-m...
    - gallexme 3y ago
      1000 annual listens? That's likely less than 1$/mo revenue the artists get no? Even small time musicians I know have about 1000 listens a month Seems to me just like yt monetization partner program which required like 50€ revenue for payout and 1000 subs+approval for even enabling monetization (some time ago unsure if it's still limited for new accounts ) Unless I'm missing something it mainly just trims out mass produced content
      - unnamed76ri 3y ago
        It is similar but different to what YouTube did (which also sucked). How many musicians do you know of that only ever released one song? This isn’t about the streaming revenue for one song (though that is how Spotify tries to frame it). There are 1000s of artist who might have even been fairly successful at one point who have dozens or more songs in their back catalog that don’t have over 1000 streams per year. Add up the lost revenue from all of those together and it isn’t about just a couple bucks anymore. Further, even approaching the argument from how much it means per song is granting Spotify a pass that this is in any way fair to artists. Why should the top 1% of artists take even more money while the struggling musician now gets nothing?
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        Agreed in general. "and it isn’t about just a couple bucks anymore." And I want to add, that for quite some musicians, a couple of bucks can make the difference between being able to (partly) pay the rent, or not. And those are usually the ones making interesting music. So I rather would like the trend reversed, less for the superstars, more for the unkown artists. But this is unlikely to change with these services.
      - 3y ago
- letier 3y ago
  This is quite interesting. I'd be interested in more information on this.
- gnfargbl 3y ago
  If you mean the changes declared in https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-system https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-..., then I find it hard to reconcile the description given there with your editorialization.
  - richrichardsson 3y ago
    > Starting in early 2024, tracks must have reached at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months in order to generate recorded royalties. This will take my Spotify income from pitiful to non-existent. Fuck Spotify.
    - unnamed76ri 3y ago
      As soon as this change was announced, I cancelled my Spotify subscription. I know it won’t mean much of anything to the overall number but at least in my case, they saved less than $10 in royalties at a cost of $132 in subscription fees.
      - swozey 3y ago
        I tested getting off spotify last year, but the other apps were so bare bones and featureless. I tried most of the popular ones, Quboz, Tidal, Spotify, Apple music, youtube music, amazon music.. i think 1-2 others. Thankfully there's an app called soundiiz that for like $2-3 will sync all of your music app playlists/favs/etc to one another. ALL of them had absolutely useless/bad Android Auto/Carplay apps. I know at least half of them (quboz tidal for sure) didn't have a way to search in the car app. Quboz or Tidal didn't even display your subscribed albums/playlists. I forget exactly but I think I could only play their recommended stuff. Exacts are off here but I remember specifically sitting in my car with both of those apps wondering why I couldn't figure how to play my fav playlist or search for an artist. Then the social stuff. I share collab playlists with a few friends. Apples adding these feautures IIRC. Surely not important to most people but they really make the other apps just feel barebones. I like gamification, rewinds, badges, etc. The Carplay thing is the killer for me, though.

YouTube pays less per stream to the rights holders than Spotify, however.

bayindirh 3y ago

I don't know the numbers. What I was trying to point out that there's no nefariousness going on.

jsnell 3y ago
No, you weren't just pointing that out. You claimed that it is "arguably still providing income for the musicians". How is it arguably providing income for tyhe artists given the app is obviously not playing ads?
- bayindirh 3y ago
  First of all, the tool’s description doesn’t say anything about ads. Second, I’m neither the developer, nor user of the app. Third, I didn’t say definitely, but arguably. I might be wrong, but I’m not endorsing anything here. Lastly, I’m an ex-musician, too and prefer to pay for premium and buy proper albums when I can. So pointing fingers doesn’t do any favor to anyone. Have a nice day.

unnamed76ri 3y ago

I don’t know where you get your info but Spotify just effectively demonetized the majority of music on their platform. They’ve decided they have the right to just stop paying small time artists so they can funnel more money upwards to the record labels.

hutzlibu 3y ago
Sources please?
- erinnh 3y ago
  https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-minimum-impact/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2024/01/11/spotify-stream-m...
  - gallexme 3y ago
    1000 annual listens? That's likely less than 1$/mo revenue the artists get no? Even small time musicians I know have about 1000 listens a month Seems to me just like yt monetization partner program which required like 50€ revenue for payout and 1000 subs+approval for even enabling monetization (some time ago unsure if it's still limited for new accounts ) Unless I'm missing something it mainly just trims out mass produced content
    - unnamed76ri 3y ago
      It is similar but different to what YouTube did (which also sucked). How many musicians do you know of that only ever released one song? This isn’t about the streaming revenue for one song (though that is how Spotify tries to frame it). There are 1000s of artist who might have even been fairly successful at one point who have dozens or more songs in their back catalog that don’t have over 1000 streams per year. Add up the lost revenue from all of those together and it isn’t about just a couple bucks anymore. Further, even approaching the argument from how much it means per song is granting Spotify a pass that this is in any way fair to artists. Why should the top 1% of artists take even more money while the struggling musician now gets nothing?
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Agreed in general. "and it isn’t about just a couple bucks anymore." And I want to add, that for quite some musicians, a couple of bucks can make the difference between being able to (partly) pay the rent, or not. And those are usually the ones making interesting music. So I rather would like the trend reversed, less for the superstars, more for the unkown artists. But this is unlikely to change with these services.
    - 3y ago
letier 3y ago
This is quite interesting. I'd be interested in more information on this.
gnfargbl 3y ago
If you mean the changes declared in https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-system https://artists.spotify.com/en/blog/modernizing-our-royalty-..., then I find it hard to reconcile the description given there with your editorialization.
- richrichardsson 3y ago
  > Starting in early 2024, tracks must have reached at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months in order to generate recorded royalties. This will take my Spotify income from pitiful to non-existent. Fuck Spotify.
  - unnamed76ri 3y ago
    As soon as this change was announced, I cancelled my Spotify subscription. I know it won’t mean much of anything to the overall number but at least in my case, they saved less than $10 in royalties at a cost of $132 in subscription fees.
    - swozey 3y ago
      I tested getting off spotify last year, but the other apps were so bare bones and featureless. I tried most of the popular ones, Quboz, Tidal, Spotify, Apple music, youtube music, amazon music.. i think 1-2 others. Thankfully there's an app called soundiiz that for like $2-3 will sync all of your music app playlists/favs/etc to one another. ALL of them had absolutely useless/bad Android Auto/Carplay apps. I know at least half of them (quboz tidal for sure) didn't have a way to search in the car app. Quboz or Tidal didn't even display your subscribed albums/playlists. I forget exactly but I think I could only play their recommended stuff. Exacts are off here but I remember specifically sitting in my car with both of those apps wondering why I couldn't figure how to play my fav playlist or search for an artist. Then the social stuff. I share collab playlists with a few friends. Apples adding these feautures IIRC. Surely not important to most people but they really make the other apps just feel barebones. I like gamification, rewinds, badges, etc. The Carplay thing is the killer for me, though.