2 ms·
The actual distribution is not free, management companies take a huge cut both formally or informally. For some reason[0], you can't just upload your music to S
by kmeisthax 2y ago
The actual distribution is not free, management companies take a huge cut both formally or informally. For some reason[0], you can't just upload your music to Spotify or Apple Music directly, you have to have a middleman, and that market of "middlemen for unsigned artists" is just three companies[1]. They all suck in different ways, but there's a lot of creative-class wage theft going on, even beyond Spotify just underpaying indies on rights.
You can upload music directly on YouTube, but they pay very little on short videos and music streams. And there's also sketchy management companies and MCNs there anyway.
We also have to keep in mind that the music industry loves complicated and unclear ownership structures over the music being produced. Nobody completely owns a music track; there's separate copyrights for melody and recordings, both of which get separated and broken down in extremely opaque ways. Remixes and sampling make the rights situation even more complicated, and at best, mean that the person who made the remix or used the samples has to share revenue. At worst, you get to deal with all sorts of bullshit claims (or lawsuits) from people who think they own more than they do.
Insamuch as cheap distribution has flooded the market, it's often either in the form of attempts to launder money through Spotify[2], or online advertising style click fraud of some kind. The problem is not that there are too many honest artists, but that nobody does proper KYC on indies. Either they don't care if you're legit or they don't want to work with people at the small end.
[0] In the case of Apple, long-standing trademark disputes with The Beatles prohibit them from representing artists directly, which is how management companies got their start for self-published acts. However, this would not bind Spotify or other streaming services.
[1] CDBaby, TuneCore, and DistroKid, if I remember correctly
[2] e.g. buy a bunch of Spotify subscriptions with drug money, publish a bunch of nominally unrelated artists on Spotify, listen to them 24/7, then the Spotify payments are clean cash
- bhelkey 2y ago> The actual distribution is not free, management companies take a huge cut both formally or informally. Spotify has a list of recommended distributors [1]. The first one on the list, DistroKid, charges $22/yr for unlimited uploads to Spotify, Apple Music with the artist keeping all royalties[2]. $22 is not free but is very reasonable. [1] https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/getting-music-on-spotify/ https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/getting-music... [2] https://distrokid.com/ https://distrokid.com/
- kmeisthax 2y agoYouTube is chock full of musicians with endless complaints about DistroKid's practices and policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x14kZTPA064 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x14kZTPA064 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuE3YQK1-Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuE3YQK1-Ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itYB2XSsLAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itYB2XSsLAc
- bongodongobob 2y agoWell they're off base because it's nearly free global distribution. Cry me a river or be so talented the entire world wants to pay you to perform live. No one pays to see mediocrity.
- aziaziazi 2y agoI appreciate the links, would you share the complaints here? I access the web with 8yo phone or 11yo laptop and HN is great because it’s text only and does not require to arbitrage between loading speed and buying a new device each X year.
- potatoman22 2y agoSpotify is essentially the distributor now, not DistroKid.