3 ms·

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

by asdof 3y ago

tgv 3y ago
Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  > And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays Unfortunately more like 5000+ plays. People tend go to concerts of music they listen to and for a lot of people that means hearing it on Spotify
  - peapicker 3y ago
    Actually, the spotify rate is 0.003 cents per track, which reflects my 83 plays ‘earning’ $0.25 on Spotify before this.
- epolanski 3y ago
  > People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track Do you have numbers behind this claim? I definitely got aware of some unknown artists thanks to Spotify and YouTube, some of them had low hundreds views/listens. Ended up supporting them, going to concerts and buying merch.
  - nsteel 3y ago
    Same. I see a show advertised and I want to hear what the bands sound like, the easiest way (for me) is to search for them on Spotify and check out the top few tracks and the new release. If I like what I hear then I'll buy a ticket and go. I probably could have found the tracks other ways if I really tried, but this way just works, almost always.
- cal85 3y ago
  It is extremely common and often perfectly rational for creatives to do things in exchange for exposure. There is nothing fallacious about this. > People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Yes they do.
  - m000 3y ago
    If there's any fallacy here, it is comparing "for exposure" between a gig at your local dive bar (this is where you typically hear the phrase), and uploading your material to Spotify. The first requires committing time and effort to get 50 people to see you, 20 of which are your personal friends. The second is making the music you have already produced available to millions of people around the world, with virtually no effort. Surely Spotify should improve on compensating artists, but all-in-all it is still a better deal for the artist than the "for exposure" gig at the local bar.
- jug 3y ago
  I'm not sure what your basis is for this claim? I've most certainly discovered artists from Spotify and later on bought e.g. merch to support them. I would in a heartbeat also go on their concerts if I was given the opportunity with travel distance, vacation plans etc. Spotify can't give you these experiences no matter how hard they try so this claim doesn't make much sense to me. A concert isn't exactly competing with streaming services or anything.
  - subroutine 3y ago
    Same. Anecdotally I discovered khruangbin on spotify and will be seeing their concert next tuesday.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  Your absolutist claim is already false by virtue of the fact that I have gone to an “indie” show after hearing a track on Spotify. Next?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Next should be the advice to not take comments of that form as "absolutist" but understand them to mean as "in general"...
- herculity275 3y ago
  > People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track Anecdotically I've attended multiple gigs for artists I discovered via Spotify.
  - antifa 3y ago
    If Spotify's search page wasn't so broken and useless, I'd probably have gone to _more_ indie concerts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment While it does, note that paying or doing stuff free "for exposure" is exactly how many artists got big and huge hits were made, from payola to DJs (starting way earlier than Alan Freed with radio DJs, and going all the way to EDM DJs being paid to break a track), all the way to paying for artist ads or record shop placement, buying fake streams, followers, and views to appear more popular and drive exposure, or doing for free (or, often, paying for) the support spot on a bigger band's concert.
atoav 3y ago
I have no data on that, but my stochastic feeling (based on conversations I had with people visiting our concerts) does not imply that at all. Most came because (in that order of frequency): 1. They saw our sticker/poster and thought the name is interesting 2. They checked the venue/festival-site and thought it sounded interesting 3. They knew us from social media Exactly zero times I had someone tell me the found us on spotify and came because of that. Of course that doesn't mean no such people exist, my sample size might be too small. There might also be people who find us on spotify and then buy on bandcamp, no way to check on that. But my feeling right now is that our more traditional boots on the ground marketing does a lot more than the online stuff. That doesn't mean that dynamic can be totally different for other bands or other genres tho.
- subroutine 3y ago
  Yeah for some bands, letting people listen to a sample of their music before paying the cover charge might work against them ;)

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

by asdof 3y ago

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

tgv 3y ago

Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago
> And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays Unfortunately more like 5000+ plays. People tend go to concerts of music they listen to and for a lot of people that means hearing it on Spotify
- peapicker 3y ago
  Actually, the spotify rate is 0.003 cents per track, which reflects my 83 plays ‘earning’ $0.25 on Spotify before this.
epolanski 3y ago
> People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track Do you have numbers behind this claim? I definitely got aware of some unknown artists thanks to Spotify and YouTube, some of them had low hundreds views/listens. Ended up supporting them, going to concerts and buying merch.
- nsteel 3y ago
  Same. I see a show advertised and I want to hear what the bands sound like, the easiest way (for me) is to search for them on Spotify and check out the top few tracks and the new release. If I like what I hear then I'll buy a ticket and go. I probably could have found the tracks other ways if I really tried, but this way just works, almost always.
cal85 3y ago
It is extremely common and often perfectly rational for creatives to do things in exchange for exposure. There is nothing fallacious about this. > People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Yes they do.
- m000 3y ago
  If there's any fallacy here, it is comparing "for exposure" between a gig at your local dive bar (this is where you typically hear the phrase), and uploading your material to Spotify. The first requires committing time and effort to get 50 people to see you, 20 of which are your personal friends. The second is making the music you have already produced available to millions of people around the world, with virtually no effort. Surely Spotify should improve on compensating artists, but all-in-all it is still a better deal for the artist than the "for exposure" gig at the local bar.
jug 3y ago
I'm not sure what your basis is for this claim? I've most certainly discovered artists from Spotify and later on bought e.g. merch to support them. I would in a heartbeat also go on their concerts if I was given the opportunity with travel distance, vacation plans etc. Spotify can't give you these experiences no matter how hard they try so this claim doesn't make much sense to me. A concert isn't exactly competing with streaming services or anything.
- subroutine 3y ago
  Same. Anecdotally I discovered khruangbin on spotify and will be seeing their concert next tuesday.
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
Your absolutist claim is already false by virtue of the fact that I have gone to an “indie” show after hearing a track on Spotify. Next?
- coldtea 3y ago
  Next should be the advice to not take comments of that form as "absolutist" but understand them to mean as "in general"...
herculity275 3y ago
> People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track Anecdotically I've attended multiple gigs for artists I discovered via Spotify.
- antifa 3y ago
  If Spotify's search page wasn't so broken and useless, I'd probably have gone to _more_ indie concerts.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 3y ago
>Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment While it does, note that paying or doing stuff free "for exposure" is exactly how many artists got big and huge hits were made, from payola to DJs (starting way earlier than Alan Freed with radio DJs, and going all the way to EDM DJs being paid to break a track), all the way to paying for artist ads or record shop placement, buying fake streams, followers, and views to appear more popular and drive exposure, or doing for free (or, often, paying for) the support spot on a bigger band's concert.

atoav 3y ago

I have no data on that, but my stochastic feeling (based on conversations I had with people visiting our concerts) does not imply that at all. Most came because (in that order of frequency): 1. They saw our sticker/poster and thought the name is interesting 2. They checked the venue/festival-site and thought it sounded interesting 3. They knew us from social media Exactly zero times I had someone tell me the found us on spotify and came because of that. Of course that doesn't mean no such people exist, my sample size might be too small. There might also be people who find us on spotify and then buy on bandcamp, no way to check on that. But my feeling right now is that our more traditional boots on the ground marketing does a lot more than the online stuff. That doesn't mean that dynamic can be totally different for other bands or other genres tho.

subroutine 3y ago
Yeah for some bands, letting people listen to a sample of their music before paying the cover charge might work against them ;)