4 ms·

Spotify isn't a parasite... it is an amazing service that connects listeners with musicians, and has excellent methods to help people discover new music they wi

by _yb2s 2y ago

Spotify isn't a parasite... it is an amazing service that connects listeners with musicians, and has excellent methods to help people discover new music they will likely enjoy. It pays artists little because it charges users little- so anyone can afford to listen to music, but unlike the radio or pirating, their listen actually sends money to the artist. I've discovered, and become a concert ticket buying fan of a huge number of small time artists that would have been nearly impossible to find or listen to without spotify. No artist is forced to list songs on spotify, if a non-spotify method worked better for them to get fans and income, they don't need to put songs on there- yet I find most artists do have their music on there.

FireBeyond 2y ago
> It pays artists little because it charges users little And yet services like Tidal can afford to pay artists 4-6 times more for the same amount of streaming.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I don't find that surprising. I did a free trial of Tidal and only found about 1/10th of the artists I like on there, so for the same subscription fee I either listened to music a lot less, or listened to the same artists and songs a lot more. Either way, that is a much bigger fraction of my subscription fees for each individual artist. I loved the software and high audio quality, but it just wasn't usable because it didn't have the music I wanted to listen to. From what I've heard, about 70% of a Spotify subscription pays directly for content to the rights holders, and it is mostly distributed in proportion to 'listens.' This does mean that most of the money goes to a tiny number of extremely popular artists, but that seems more like a social dynamic that always existed with pop music, and not Spotify's fault.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >This does mean that most of the money goes to a tiny number of extremely popular artists, but that seems more like a social dynamic that always existed with pop music, and not Spotify's fault. And society. Oh well, billionaires are just a social dynamic. Can't all be rich, best to just accept being poor as rent rises.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      Neither music or life are inherently zero sum. People do sometimes get rich doing awful things, but they also can get rich doing things that add a lot of value to others lives- like making access to music easy and affordable. Do you truly believe that life is a zero sum game, or is it seeing someone else be rich that in itself bothers you, even if it means you are also living better? Would you prefer to be much poorer, less healthy, etc. in order to make sure everyone else is also? That is the awful life-denying bargain your worldview is offering.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >Neither music or life are inherently zero sum. I agree. But the way we monetize life and business becomes zero sum. You don't become a billionaire by giving everyone a living wage. Music is accessible because the top 1% are satisfied and the bottom 50% is fighting for scraps. If you're a Taylor Swift fan that's not an issue for you, but you can see why this starts to feel zero sum to me, no? >is it seeing someone else be rich that in itself bothers you, even if it means you are also living better? It's seeing the rich bask in what's only a evolve above slave labor, as it gets harder and hared for the supposed "middle class" if you solve world hunger, you can be a trillionaire for all I care. But the sheer inequality and efforts to make it worse is why I'm inherently scrutiny of these companies. Not to even mention all the dark arts tech employs to more or less psychologically exploit people in general. These are not good people trying to do good things for the world. >Would you prefer to be much poorer, less healthy, etc. in order to make sure everyone else is also? That is the awful life-denying bargain your worldview is offering. I'd prefer to not psycho-introspect into my own life based on one comment as opposed to just asking me, thank you very much. I hope the explanation above suffices. Happy to clarify, but I won't be replying to any more swipes like this.
wilsonnb3 2y ago
> No artist is forced to list songs on spotify, if a non-spotify method worked better for them to get fans and income, they don't need to put songs on there- yet I find most artists do have their music on there. They don't really have a choice to avoid Spotify though, unless you consider giving up 30% of the streaming market (which itself is 80% of the overall music market) to be reasonable. Even Taylor Swift couldn't justify being off Spotify.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Unless they refuse to sell out ;-) https://youtu.be/gzrRoDd9CxM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/gzrRoDd9CxM?feature=shared
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>pays artists little because it charges users little That rationalizes exactly how we came to this age of enshittification. If you don't value your time Spotify is cheap. But Adverts very much do and at this stage half of Spotify is just regurgitating ads to you unless you pay $10/month (or probably more at this point. They can charge $50/month and not much would happen because the free users will listen to ads anyway). That's the true tragedy of 21st century capitalism. The invisible hand has failed becsuse people are too lazy to make a choice when they're being exploited.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Interesting, I've used Spotify for years and didn't even know you can even use it for free with ads- I would never do that, but it is pretty awesome that you can! I pay about $8.50/month (my half of a 2-person account) for unlimited access to any music I want with zero ads... seems like a great deal to me. I don't see any sign of "enshittification," "tragedy," or "exploitation" - just lots of good music for a low price- which was impossible before Spotify existed. I mean, if people value their time so little, they probably simply couldn't afford even that tiny fee, so at least they get to listen to music they like, instead of listening to ads on the radio with music they can't choose. I don't get why people think not offering something valuable and expensive to provide for free is evil or a tragedy. Before Spotify that sort of budget would have paid for maybe ~6 new legal albums per year which I couldn't listen to before I bought, so many would end up not being listened to. Now the same budget allows me to listen to anything I want anytime- and the money goes to the artists I like in proportion to how much I actually like them instead of how much I expected to like them before I actually got to listen. That seems like the opposite of a tragedy.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    > I would never do that, but it is pretty awesome that you can! we haven't been in the same tech industry the last decade, have we? >I don't see any sign of "enshittification," "tragedy," or "exploitation" - just lots of good music for a low price- which was impossible before Spotify existed. I guess you aren't in the US. We just got a price bump https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170301/spotify-us-price-increase-plans https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170301/spotify-us-price-... https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/tech/spotify-price-increase/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/tech/spotify-price-increase/i... Which is the 2nd price bump this year. But this goes to the workers right? >Spotify recently increased subscription prices for international subscribers, cut costs and underwent several rounds of layoffs including drastic reductions to its podcast business. This is what happens with market capture. They run at unsustainable rates for years, and then the squeeze happens when people are too lazy to step out of the pot. And then they squeeze the workers as well by making them do more with less staff. I wish people wouldn't so easily excuse monopolization. It doesn't end well for anyone but the C-Suite. But as they say: >Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification. - Squidward Tentacles, 2001

by _yb2s 2y ago

FireBeyond 2y ago

> It pays artists little because it charges users little And yet services like Tidal can afford to pay artists 4-6 times more for the same amount of streaming.

_yb2s 2y ago
I don't find that surprising. I did a free trial of Tidal and only found about 1/10th of the artists I like on there, so for the same subscription fee I either listened to music a lot less, or listened to the same artists and songs a lot more. Either way, that is a much bigger fraction of my subscription fees for each individual artist. I loved the software and high audio quality, but it just wasn't usable because it didn't have the music I wanted to listen to. From what I've heard, about 70% of a Spotify subscription pays directly for content to the rights holders, and it is mostly distributed in proportion to 'listens.' This does mean that most of the money goes to a tiny number of extremely popular artists, but that seems more like a social dynamic that always existed with pop music, and not Spotify's fault.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >This does mean that most of the money goes to a tiny number of extremely popular artists, but that seems more like a social dynamic that always existed with pop music, and not Spotify's fault. And society. Oh well, billionaires are just a social dynamic. Can't all be rich, best to just accept being poor as rent rises.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Neither music or life are inherently zero sum. People do sometimes get rich doing awful things, but they also can get rich doing things that add a lot of value to others lives- like making access to music easy and affordable. Do you truly believe that life is a zero sum game, or is it seeing someone else be rich that in itself bothers you, even if it means you are also living better? Would you prefer to be much poorer, less healthy, etc. in order to make sure everyone else is also? That is the awful life-denying bargain your worldview is offering.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >Neither music or life are inherently zero sum. I agree. But the way we monetize life and business becomes zero sum. You don't become a billionaire by giving everyone a living wage. Music is accessible because the top 1% are satisfied and the bottom 50% is fighting for scraps. If you're a Taylor Swift fan that's not an issue for you, but you can see why this starts to feel zero sum to me, no? >is it seeing someone else be rich that in itself bothers you, even if it means you are also living better? It's seeing the rich bask in what's only a evolve above slave labor, as it gets harder and hared for the supposed "middle class" if you solve world hunger, you can be a trillionaire for all I care. But the sheer inequality and efforts to make it worse is why I'm inherently scrutiny of these companies. Not to even mention all the dark arts tech employs to more or less psychologically exploit people in general. These are not good people trying to do good things for the world. >Would you prefer to be much poorer, less healthy, etc. in order to make sure everyone else is also? That is the awful life-denying bargain your worldview is offering. I'd prefer to not psycho-introspect into my own life based on one comment as opposed to just asking me, thank you very much. I hope the explanation above suffices. Happy to clarify, but I won't be replying to any more swipes like this.

wilsonnb3 2y ago

> No artist is forced to list songs on spotify, if a non-spotify method worked better for them to get fans and income, they don't need to put songs on there- yet I find most artists do have their music on there. They don't really have a choice to avoid Spotify though, unless you consider giving up 30% of the streaming market (which itself is 80% of the overall music market) to be reasonable. Even Taylor Swift couldn't justify being off Spotify.

_yb2s 2y ago
Unless they refuse to sell out ;-) https://youtu.be/gzrRoDd9CxM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/gzrRoDd9CxM?feature=shared

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>pays artists little because it charges users little That rationalizes exactly how we came to this age of enshittification. If you don't value your time Spotify is cheap. But Adverts very much do and at this stage half of Spotify is just regurgitating ads to you unless you pay $10/month (or probably more at this point. They can charge $50/month and not much would happen because the free users will listen to ads anyway). That's the true tragedy of 21st century capitalism. The invisible hand has failed becsuse people are too lazy to make a choice when they're being exploited.

_yb2s 2y ago
Interesting, I've used Spotify for years and didn't even know you can even use it for free with ads- I would never do that, but it is pretty awesome that you can! I pay about $8.50/month (my half of a 2-person account) for unlimited access to any music I want with zero ads... seems like a great deal to me. I don't see any sign of "enshittification," "tragedy," or "exploitation" - just lots of good music for a low price- which was impossible before Spotify existed. I mean, if people value their time so little, they probably simply couldn't afford even that tiny fee, so at least they get to listen to music they like, instead of listening to ads on the radio with music they can't choose. I don't get why people think not offering something valuable and expensive to provide for free is evil or a tragedy. Before Spotify that sort of budget would have paid for maybe ~6 new legal albums per year which I couldn't listen to before I bought, so many would end up not being listened to. Now the same budget allows me to listen to anything I want anytime- and the money goes to the artists I like in proportion to how much I actually like them instead of how much I expected to like them before I actually got to listen. That seems like the opposite of a tragedy.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  > I would never do that, but it is pretty awesome that you can! we haven't been in the same tech industry the last decade, have we? >I don't see any sign of "enshittification," "tragedy," or "exploitation" - just lots of good music for a low price- which was impossible before Spotify existed. I guess you aren't in the US. We just got a price bump https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170301/spotify-us-price-increase-plans https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/3/24170301/spotify-us-price-... https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/tech/spotify-price-increase/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/03/tech/spotify-price-increase/i... Which is the 2nd price bump this year. But this goes to the workers right? >Spotify recently increased subscription prices for international subscribers, cut costs and underwent several rounds of layoffs including drastic reductions to its podcast business. This is what happens with market capture. They run at unsustainable rates for years, and then the squeeze happens when people are too lazy to step out of the pot. And then they squeeze the workers as well by making them do more with less staff. I wish people wouldn't so easily excuse monopolization. It doesn't end well for anyone but the C-Suite. But as they say: >Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification. - Squidward Tentacles, 2001