4 ms·

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

by _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.

by _yb2s 2y ago

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.