6 ms·

To be fair, consumers mostly don’t want to pay artists much money either. The consumers who do want to pay have plenty of avenues to directly support their favo

To be fair, consumers mostly don’t want to pay artists much money either. The consumers who do want to pay have plenty of avenues to directly support their favorite artists. Spotify is a music distribution tool that modern artists use to leverage their popularity into fiscal gains. Paying per stream is an antiquated business model at this point.

klodolph 3y ago
> Spotify is a music distribution tool that modern artists use to leverage their popularity into fiscal gains. This is a skewed way of looking at it, that highlights the positive and ignores the negative. It’s a lot harder to turn musical talent, productivity (writing & performing songs), and popularity into money than it used to be. Spotify is a big part of that change—and yes, it probably would have been a different company if it weren’t Spotify, but so what? In our history, it’s Spotify.
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  Besides a handful popular artists not making as much as they used to during the golden age of MTV and CDs, have things really changed that much for the rest? Music business was always extremely hit driven.
  - klodolph 3y ago
    Smaller / medium bands have it rough compared to, say, the 2000s. Music isn’t just hit-driven. There used to be more house bands, more bands who could make a living from tours, that sort of thing. These days, musicians try to find an audience on Spotify and social media and make money doing performances, selling merch, and going on tour, but the amount of revenue you make from that kind of work is a lot less.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Seems like an unlikely claim given that much wider variety of small artists making it work now than before
  - klodolph 3y ago
    Seems like the opposite to me—small artists used to be able to make a living playing local bars, or maybe be a musician and have a part-time job, but nowadays there are so few venues with live bands.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Interesting point, but I think it is not a counterpoint. It may be true that there is less room for tiny performance acts with zero success on writing songs that people listen to. It is however a much better place for small acts that write songs that people want to listen to in niche interests. Such audiences can’t be sustained in a single locale.
      - klodolph 3y ago
        That’s success in the sense that niche music is getting out to listeners—but I think we should also care whether these artists we like are able to pay for food and rent, and I think the picture looks somewhat grim. If you’re productive and put out two albums per year, and you want to make half of your money from streaming, let’s say $40k per year from streaming, you end up needing somewhere around 10 million streams per album (somewhere around $2500 per million streams). That’s just for one person to get by. If you sold digital copies of your album, you’d only need to sell 6,000 copies per album to make the same amount of money (around $7 per digital album sale). I remember being really happy to pay $10 for an album, just ten short years ago. (Yeah, I was a little slow to get a streaming subscription.)
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        I guess something doesn’t make sense there though. The fact that these artists are there, still making new music, suggests to me that they are making it work one way or another. Maybe they just on average have other jobs. I feel that’s not obviously worse than them trying to make ends meet playing at bars.
        3y ago
- jwagenet 3y ago
  It’s easier than ever to make music and sell it on Spotify or elsewhere (especially without a label), which is a double edged sword: an artist is competing against everyone else who joined the talent pool.
  - klodolph 3y ago
    Yeah—it’s also easier than ever to write an article and post it online, which is also a double-edged sword: journalists are competing against everyone else who joined the talent pool. Good reporting is basically dead compared to the 1990s, and professional musicians are getting squeezed out.
    - jwagenet 3y ago
      The majority of the recorded music revenue pie appears to go to a small group at the top of the pops, and I don’t think that has changed since the 90s. Perhaps the scraps are being fought over by a larger pool, but the demand for alternative music has never been higher, likely increasing the pie. Demand for good reporting seems to be non existent in comparison.
- caymanjim 3y ago
  > It’s a lot harder to turn musical talent, productivity (writing & performing songs), and popularity into money than it used to be. Nonsense. It's never been easier, and the change is so dramatic that it's an entirely different world than it used to be. Anyone at all, alone, with no agent, label, production team, or any support whatsoever, can create and publish music and videos, for free, upload them to free hosting services, where they will live indefinitely and be available to a global audience on-demand. And if they're even a little popular, they can get paid. If they're really popular, they can get paid a lot. Exactly when and how was it ever easier than this? Before, you needed an army of people and companies on your side, and had to be exceedingly popular to stand any chance of earning a penny. There were dozens of gatekeepers between artists and the fame and fortune they sought.
  - klodolph 3y ago
    > Before, you needed an army of people and companies on your side, and had to be exceedingly popular to stand any chance of earning a penny. Before, you could play to local audiences. You even stood a decent chance of making a living doing that, or maybe enough that you could do that and have a part-time job. Nowadays it’s a lot harder. This is where a lot of our big stars came from, in the first place. Some were in cover bands, or played piano in local bars for small audiences. It’s easier than ever to get popular, but harder than ever to earn money.
- Gud 3y ago
  Got any numbers for this decline? Because intuitively, I would guess the opposite - Smaller acts would have it easier today to find an audience for their niche.
tgv 3y ago
What people want is no justification for anything. If people want to have cars for free, are you going to facilitate that? No, Spotify just does it because they can get away with it, while filling their own pockets nicely at the expense of the creators of their merch (Ek's worth is estimated in the $billions). > into fiscal gains That does not contradict pay per stream, at all.
- proteal 3y ago
  I think that balance of power has shifted from the artists to consumers which is driving down direct artist pay. I’ve still got the same amount of time each day to listen to music before streaming services existed, but now I’m afforded so much choice in music that each song/artist must compete harder for my attention. There’s always been way more talented artists than I could possibly listen to, but with Spotify I can now actually get the music to my ears. Now the limit is my time. All of a sudden, each artist is now competing with every other artist (and not just the big ones, either!) because of the new streaming distribution model. It seems natural to me that the price is going down. The new streaming model also isn’t going away because it’s changed the way consumers engage with music. Before I would have to gamble on CDs/records in a pretty high-friction process. You would pay for the big names because you knew they would put something quality out, so it wasn’t as risky to buy their stuff. Now the cost for me to switch to other songs is basically 0, so I’m much more easily able to find stuff I like. I’d argue that this new streaming model is incredibly valuable and warrants Spotify’s high valuation. Though, I agree with your sentiment here. Artists and their music power Spotify, so it seems fair that they get the lions share of value. Right now, it doesn’t feel like that. However, I think in the long run artists will win because their music is truly inimitable. Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Tidal, etc. are all fiercely competing on this distribution model. I haven’t seen a single feature that can’t be copied on any of these platforms. On the other hand, it’s basically impossible to copy another artist’s music (and make real money). Over time, I think streaming services’ margins will slim down because they must compete on price if they can’t compete on unique features. This will ultimately allow more artists to earn more money which is something I think we both can agree is what we want out of the music industry.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago

klodolph 3y ago

> Spotify is a music distribution tool that modern artists use to leverage their popularity into fiscal gains. This is a skewed way of looking at it, that highlights the positive and ignores the negative. It’s a lot harder to turn musical talent, productivity (writing & performing songs), and popularity into money than it used to be. Spotify is a big part of that change—and yes, it probably would have been a different company if it weren’t Spotify, but so what? In our history, it’s Spotify.

flohofwoe 3y ago
Besides a handful popular artists not making as much as they used to during the golden age of MTV and CDs, have things really changed that much for the rest? Music business was always extremely hit driven.
- klodolph 3y ago
  Smaller / medium bands have it rough compared to, say, the 2000s. Music isn’t just hit-driven. There used to be more house bands, more bands who could make a living from tours, that sort of thing. These days, musicians try to find an audience on Spotify and social media and make money doing performances, selling merch, and going on tour, but the amount of revenue you make from that kind of work is a lot less.
jncfhnb 3y ago
Seems like an unlikely claim given that much wider variety of small artists making it work now than before
- klodolph 3y ago
  Seems like the opposite to me—small artists used to be able to make a living playing local bars, or maybe be a musician and have a part-time job, but nowadays there are so few venues with live bands.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Interesting point, but I think it is not a counterpoint. It may be true that there is less room for tiny performance acts with zero success on writing songs that people listen to. It is however a much better place for small acts that write songs that people want to listen to in niche interests. Such audiences can’t be sustained in a single locale.
    - klodolph 3y ago
      That’s success in the sense that niche music is getting out to listeners—but I think we should also care whether these artists we like are able to pay for food and rent, and I think the picture looks somewhat grim. If you’re productive and put out two albums per year, and you want to make half of your money from streaming, let’s say $40k per year from streaming, you end up needing somewhere around 10 million streams per album (somewhere around $2500 per million streams). That’s just for one person to get by. If you sold digital copies of your album, you’d only need to sell 6,000 copies per album to make the same amount of money (around $7 per digital album sale). I remember being really happy to pay $10 for an album, just ten short years ago. (Yeah, I was a little slow to get a streaming subscription.)
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        I guess something doesn’t make sense there though. The fact that these artists are there, still making new music, suggests to me that they are making it work one way or another. Maybe they just on average have other jobs. I feel that’s not obviously worse than them trying to make ends meet playing at bars.
        3y ago
jwagenet 3y ago
It’s easier than ever to make music and sell it on Spotify or elsewhere (especially without a label), which is a double edged sword: an artist is competing against everyone else who joined the talent pool.
- klodolph 3y ago
  Yeah—it’s also easier than ever to write an article and post it online, which is also a double-edged sword: journalists are competing against everyone else who joined the talent pool. Good reporting is basically dead compared to the 1990s, and professional musicians are getting squeezed out.
  - jwagenet 3y ago
    The majority of the recorded music revenue pie appears to go to a small group at the top of the pops, and I don’t think that has changed since the 90s. Perhaps the scraps are being fought over by a larger pool, but the demand for alternative music has never been higher, likely increasing the pie. Demand for good reporting seems to be non existent in comparison.
caymanjim 3y ago
> It’s a lot harder to turn musical talent, productivity (writing & performing songs), and popularity into money than it used to be. Nonsense. It's never been easier, and the change is so dramatic that it's an entirely different world than it used to be. Anyone at all, alone, with no agent, label, production team, or any support whatsoever, can create and publish music and videos, for free, upload them to free hosting services, where they will live indefinitely and be available to a global audience on-demand. And if they're even a little popular, they can get paid. If they're really popular, they can get paid a lot. Exactly when and how was it ever easier than this? Before, you needed an army of people and companies on your side, and had to be exceedingly popular to stand any chance of earning a penny. There were dozens of gatekeepers between artists and the fame and fortune they sought.
- klodolph 3y ago
  > Before, you needed an army of people and companies on your side, and had to be exceedingly popular to stand any chance of earning a penny. Before, you could play to local audiences. You even stood a decent chance of making a living doing that, or maybe enough that you could do that and have a part-time job. Nowadays it’s a lot harder. This is where a lot of our big stars came from, in the first place. Some were in cover bands, or played piano in local bars for small audiences. It’s easier than ever to get popular, but harder than ever to earn money.
Gud 3y ago
Got any numbers for this decline? Because intuitively, I would guess the opposite - Smaller acts would have it easier today to find an audience for their niche.

tgv 3y ago

What people want is no justification for anything. If people want to have cars for free, are you going to facilitate that? No, Spotify just does it because they can get away with it, while filling their own pockets nicely at the expense of the creators of their merch (Ek's worth is estimated in the $billions). > into fiscal gains That does not contradict pay per stream, at all.

proteal 3y ago
I think that balance of power has shifted from the artists to consumers which is driving down direct artist pay. I’ve still got the same amount of time each day to listen to music before streaming services existed, but now I’m afforded so much choice in music that each song/artist must compete harder for my attention. There’s always been way more talented artists than I could possibly listen to, but with Spotify I can now actually get the music to my ears. Now the limit is my time. All of a sudden, each artist is now competing with every other artist (and not just the big ones, either!) because of the new streaming distribution model. It seems natural to me that the price is going down. The new streaming model also isn’t going away because it’s changed the way consumers engage with music. Before I would have to gamble on CDs/records in a pretty high-friction process. You would pay for the big names because you knew they would put something quality out, so it wasn’t as risky to buy their stuff. Now the cost for me to switch to other songs is basically 0, so I’m much more easily able to find stuff I like. I’d argue that this new streaming model is incredibly valuable and warrants Spotify’s high valuation. Though, I agree with your sentiment here. Artists and their music power Spotify, so it seems fair that they get the lions share of value. Right now, it doesn’t feel like that. However, I think in the long run artists will win because their music is truly inimitable. Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Tidal, etc. are all fiercely competing on this distribution model. I haven’t seen a single feature that can’t be copied on any of these platforms. On the other hand, it’s basically impossible to copy another artist’s music (and make real money). Over time, I think streaming services’ margins will slim down because they must compete on price if they can’t compete on unique features. This will ultimately allow more artists to earn more money which is something I think we both can agree is what we want out of the music industry.
HDThoreaun 3y ago