4 ms·

Is this true? From what I've read musicians are hardly making anything off of streaming whereas they used to make much more prior to the popularization of Spoti

Is this true? From what I've read musicians are hardly making anything off of streaming whereas they used to make much more prior to the popularization of Spotify. And AFAIK Spotify has never had a profitable quarter.

ghaff 3y ago
I assume "they" in the parent refers to the labels. Almost certainly one of the things that allows streaming to be priced in a range that's palatable for consumers is that most artists make less money than ever. At $50/month, it presumably wouldn't fly. As it is, it's probably priced in about the range that a lot of people spent on physical media in pre-Napster days. (And streaming seems not to be a money printing press for at least some of the streaming services either.) ADDED: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-format/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-... Paid streaming is somewhat lower than peak CD but about the same as peak vinyl (inflation adjusted). There are peaks and valleys but consumer music spend hasn't changed that much over time.
austin-cheney 3y ago
Musicians are not the owners.
carlosjobim 3y ago
I've heard this a thousand times, but it begs the question: Why do they then put their music on Spotify?
- ghaff 3y ago
  Because streaming in pretty much the distribution channel today. Even if they sell a few CDs at live shows, increasingly younger people don't even have a CD player. And very few people buy MP3s.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    When the artists only get a couple hundred dollars per year from their streams, why even bother putting the music on Spotify? If your listeners don't want to buy your mp3s or CDs when that's the only option, then what's the point? Compare it to any other profession. Let's say a bricklayer decides to go work for a company. He works the entire year and builds houses for many people. Then he's paid a hundred dollars. He'd be an idiot to keep doing it. And he says that if he started his own brick laying business he wouldn't get even a single client. Okay, but why keep doing this?
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Maybe they should start a patreon, a kickstarter for an album or something. They clearly need new business models. Selling copies of infinitely abundant data in the age of networked computers just isn't gonna work out.
    - bloak 3y ago
      Perhaps some musicians are using Spotify as a way of advertising themselves for live gigs.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Discovery is one important reason. Not that that's guaranteed to work. You probably need to do your own marketing--including playing at local bars etc. for pennies and tips. Of course, the same things is mostly true these days for writers with a publishing contract. People pursue creative pursuits for a lot of different reasons, including personal fulfillment. But you pretty much have to win the lottery to make a decent full-time living off of it. People may somewhat enjoy laying bricks--but it's a job they expect to make a living at. If they can't, they'll try to do something else.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        I get it, but I just think it's strange. Like it would be wrong for a brick layer to let himself be taken totally advantage of, even if he enjoys laying bricks. If it's for personal fulfilment, artists can be happy with the sales they can make on their own, even if the numbers are small. Or even give their music away for free, if they want to get as many listeners as possible. But what is the sense in letting a billion dollar company exploit you and make bank on your work, while paying you almost nothing in return? Imagine if other professions were like that? "Just keep laying the bricks for free for my company, and maybe one day you'll be a famous bricklayer and I'll pay you millions".
k12sosse 3y ago
Disney sends me someone else's tax forms and information every year to my Gmail address. There's a couple spreadsheets on their royalties for songs and their streaming revenue broken out by region, then by provider. It's for multiple items that get a couple million listens a year, one song has 7 million in one month in the UK, of which "she" sees 50% revenue. Totally payout for the 7 million month? 54 cents USD. These are songs for a mid 00s - early 10s animated TV series.

ghaff 3y ago

I assume "they" in the parent refers to the labels. Almost certainly one of the things that allows streaming to be priced in a range that's palatable for consumers is that most artists make less money than ever. At $50/month, it presumably wouldn't fly. As it is, it's probably priced in about the range that a lot of people spent on physical media in pre-Napster days. (And streaming seems not to be a money printing press for at least some of the streaming services either.) ADDED: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-format/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-... Paid streaming is somewhat lower than peak CD but about the same as peak vinyl (inflation adjusted). There are peaks and valleys but consumer music spend hasn't changed that much over time.

austin-cheney 3y ago

Musicians are not the owners.

carlosjobim 3y ago

I've heard this a thousand times, but it begs the question: Why do they then put their music on Spotify?

ghaff 3y ago
Because streaming in pretty much the distribution channel today. Even if they sell a few CDs at live shows, increasingly younger people don't even have a CD player. And very few people buy MP3s.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  When the artists only get a couple hundred dollars per year from their streams, why even bother putting the music on Spotify? If your listeners don't want to buy your mp3s or CDs when that's the only option, then what's the point? Compare it to any other profession. Let's say a bricklayer decides to go work for a company. He works the entire year and builds houses for many people. Then he's paid a hundred dollars. He'd be an idiot to keep doing it. And he says that if he started his own brick laying business he wouldn't get even a single client. Okay, but why keep doing this?
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Maybe they should start a patreon, a kickstarter for an album or something. They clearly need new business models. Selling copies of infinitely abundant data in the age of networked computers just isn't gonna work out.
  - bloak 3y ago
    Perhaps some musicians are using Spotify as a way of advertising themselves for live gigs.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Discovery is one important reason. Not that that's guaranteed to work. You probably need to do your own marketing--including playing at local bars etc. for pennies and tips. Of course, the same things is mostly true these days for writers with a publishing contract. People pursue creative pursuits for a lot of different reasons, including personal fulfillment. But you pretty much have to win the lottery to make a decent full-time living off of it. People may somewhat enjoy laying bricks--but it's a job they expect to make a living at. If they can't, they'll try to do something else.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      I get it, but I just think it's strange. Like it would be wrong for a brick layer to let himself be taken totally advantage of, even if he enjoys laying bricks. If it's for personal fulfilment, artists can be happy with the sales they can make on their own, even if the numbers are small. Or even give their music away for free, if they want to get as many listeners as possible. But what is the sense in letting a billion dollar company exploit you and make bank on your work, while paying you almost nothing in return? Imagine if other professions were like that? "Just keep laying the bricks for free for my company, and maybe one day you'll be a famous bricklayer and I'll pay you millions".

k12sosse 3y ago

Disney sends me someone else's tax forms and information every year to my Gmail address. There's a couple spreadsheets on their royalties for songs and their streaming revenue broken out by region, then by provider. It's for multiple items that get a couple million listens a year, one song has 7 million in one month in the UK, of which "she" sees 50% revenue. Totally payout for the 7 million month? 54 cents USD. These are songs for a mid 00s - early 10s animated TV series.