4 ms·

I think you've over-complicated this, or at least missed the point by quite a lot. The question is extremely simple: Why should I pay money to listen to music I

by jchw 3y ago

I think you've over-complicated this, or at least missed the point by quite a lot. The question is extremely simple: Why should I pay money to listen to music I like, and then that money goes to music and artists I've never and never will listen to? I don't care how much money top performers want. If I am going to spend money on music, it should go to artists that I actually listen to. And it does, because I buy music on CD and via Bandcamp and other websites, instead of streaming it. And that's kind of the thing. If I go into a record store and buy a CD or record or something, that's what I paid for, that's what it goes to. Hell, even if I watch a monetized video on YouTube Premium, a portion of my subscription money goes to that creator. It's Literally only music that works this way, to my knowledge. There's plenty of problems with music licensing, and to me this is just another one of them.

mittermayr 3y ago
> Why should I pay money to listen to music I like, and then that money goes to music and artists I've never and never will listen to? Well, you could simply bypass Spotify and just buy the music directly from the artist, no (which you indicate you do)? So Spotify isn't necessary for this, I'd guess? Spotify isn't a payment app for artists (again, I feel super weird defending them, I am not a fan myself!), it's a distribution channel.
- ikt 3y ago
  Even better, use Spotify to discover artists then buy their music! It's not mutually exclusive!
  - mittermayr 3y ago
    That's exactly what I wanted to say further up but you summarized it way better in less words. I still think Spotify is great to discover music, but yes, there needs to be direct monetization outside of it!
- jchw 3y ago
  I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. You could give a more charitable interpretation by just treating Spotify as a music discovery service, that's not really what Spotify is marketed or intended for. Spotify is meant to be the ultimate end-game of online music streaming: it is meant to flat-out replace your giant MP3 library. And that's exactly how many people use Spotify. Not just Spotify, but also Apple Music, Pandora, etc. If it was a music discovery service, it would be reasonable for artists to accept lower payouts and whatever other garbage because it's just an additional revenue source anyway. However, streaming music is not just an additional revenue source. Streaming music is becoming the primary way that people consume music all of the time. It is a $25 billion/year industry. Artists and fans alike can't control the way that the larger market moves, but the way that the larger market moves will for sure have major impact on the entire industry and that impact will trickle all the way down. There is no reason to think that we can't or shouldn't try to discourage and flat-out regulate unfair practices. It's not that all things middlemen do are bad, it's that they routinely gain immense power in the market and then together they act against the best interests of nearly everyone other than themselves, while the barrier to entry remains so high that it may as well not be possible for all intents and purposes. I don't really understand the point of defending what Spotify does, Spotify fights tooth and nail to try not to pay more royalties. When they were small they argued they had no choice but to pay low rates because otherwise they could never survive, and of course they never went back and changed their mind on that, because what incentive do they have? So yeah. My opinion? Spotify sucks, the article was spot on.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. So people here are complaining about how Spotify does not pay the people who create music enough. And there exists a zero friction option to pay the people who create music. But people don’t want to use the zero friction option to pay the people who create music because it would cost $1 or $2 per song. So yeah. My opinion? People are just really cheap, and what they want is to spend as little as possible on music, but at the same time feel good about it by blaming someone else for not paying the music creators more. You want the people who create your music to be paid more? Go to their website, and buy it. Life does not get much easier.
master-lincoln 3y ago
> if I go into a record store and buy a CD or record or something, that's what I paid for, that's what it goes to. Hell, even if I watch a monetized video on YouTube Premium, a portion of my subscription money goes to that creator. In your examples, money goes to right holders, not necessarily content creators. That was true in CD-age and is true on Youtube. A big distinction to make I think
- jchw 3y ago
  Sure, there has always been a bit of an issue with the money making it to the actual intended recipients with music. For some reason it feels like it's more egregious and weird with music than most other things.
- the_other 3y ago
  True, but for the most part, the rights holders will be the labels representing the artists, and they'll have some kind of deal in play, so if you squint the artist still gets paid. Sure, many label-artist deals are bad. But that's a different issue, and putting Spotify into the mix doesn't change the situation. Spotify is still paying the rights holders. The only artists who aren't getting paid at all are the aging ones who sold all their rights to some conglomerates (Bob Dylan etc). They got paid via a normal record deal in the past, then they got some rights back after the old deals expired, then they sold their rights again for a lump sum and no promise of a return of the rights. Today, these artists get paid by their retirement portfolios not their music rights.

by jchw 3y ago

mittermayr 3y ago

> Why should I pay money to listen to music I like, and then that money goes to music and artists I've never and never will listen to? Well, you could simply bypass Spotify and just buy the music directly from the artist, no (which you indicate you do)? So Spotify isn't necessary for this, I'd guess? Spotify isn't a payment app for artists (again, I feel super weird defending them, I am not a fan myself!), it's a distribution channel.

ikt 3y ago
Even better, use Spotify to discover artists then buy their music! It's not mutually exclusive!
- mittermayr 3y ago
  That's exactly what I wanted to say further up but you summarized it way better in less words. I still think Spotify is great to discover music, but yes, there needs to be direct monetization outside of it!
jchw 3y ago
I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. You could give a more charitable interpretation by just treating Spotify as a music discovery service, that's not really what Spotify is marketed or intended for. Spotify is meant to be the ultimate end-game of online music streaming: it is meant to flat-out replace your giant MP3 library. And that's exactly how many people use Spotify. Not just Spotify, but also Apple Music, Pandora, etc. If it was a music discovery service, it would be reasonable for artists to accept lower payouts and whatever other garbage because it's just an additional revenue source anyway. However, streaming music is not just an additional revenue source. Streaming music is becoming the primary way that people consume music all of the time. It is a $25 billion/year industry. Artists and fans alike can't control the way that the larger market moves, but the way that the larger market moves will for sure have major impact on the entire industry and that impact will trickle all the way down. There is no reason to think that we can't or shouldn't try to discourage and flat-out regulate unfair practices. It's not that all things middlemen do are bad, it's that they routinely gain immense power in the market and then together they act against the best interests of nearly everyone other than themselves, while the barrier to entry remains so high that it may as well not be possible for all intents and purposes. I don't really understand the point of defending what Spotify does, Spotify fights tooth and nail to try not to pay more royalties. When they were small they argued they had no choice but to pay low rates because otherwise they could never survive, and of course they never went back and changed their mind on that, because what incentive do they have? So yeah. My opinion? Spotify sucks, the article was spot on.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I take issue with this because it's kind of neither here nor there. So people here are complaining about how Spotify does not pay the people who create music enough. And there exists a zero friction option to pay the people who create music. But people don’t want to use the zero friction option to pay the people who create music because it would cost $1 or $2 per song. So yeah. My opinion? People are just really cheap, and what they want is to spend as little as possible on music, but at the same time feel good about it by blaming someone else for not paying the music creators more. You want the people who create your music to be paid more? Go to their website, and buy it. Life does not get much easier.

master-lincoln 3y ago

> if I go into a record store and buy a CD or record or something, that's what I paid for, that's what it goes to. Hell, even if I watch a monetized video on YouTube Premium, a portion of my subscription money goes to that creator. In your examples, money goes to right holders, not necessarily content creators. That was true in CD-age and is true on Youtube. A big distinction to make I think

jchw 3y ago
Sure, there has always been a bit of an issue with the money making it to the actual intended recipients with music. For some reason it feels like it's more egregious and weird with music than most other things.
the_other 3y ago
True, but for the most part, the rights holders will be the labels representing the artists, and they'll have some kind of deal in play, so if you squint the artist still gets paid. Sure, many label-artist deals are bad. But that's a different issue, and putting Spotify into the mix doesn't change the situation. Spotify is still paying the rights holders. The only artists who aren't getting paid at all are the aging ones who sold all their rights to some conglomerates (Bob Dylan etc). They got paid via a normal record deal in the past, then they got some rights back after the old deals expired, then they sold their rights again for a lump sum and no promise of a return of the rights. Today, these artists get paid by their retirement portfolios not their music rights.