6 ms·

Call me naive, but can't an artist just refuse to be listed on Spotify? No meetings, groups, boycotts necessary. If an artist feels like the payout isn't high e

by bko 1y ago

Call me naive, but can't an artist just refuse to be listed on Spotify? No meetings, groups, boycotts necessary. If an artist feels like the payout isn't high enough, they can just exclude their catalog from the app. And if they don't own their own catalog, then that's a decision they made knowingly and they gave up their right to control where it gets hosted. If they got exploited or didn't know, then they should take it up with their agent, whoever was advising them or the person that owns the rights. They can also try to buy their rights back. Has nothing to do w/ Spotify. This anger against Spotify and other streaming services just strikes me as misdirected. Spotify pays out ~70% of its revenue to music rights holders, which strikes me as reasonable, although I have nothing really to base this on. But I feel like the people behind this kind of movement expect a much bigger payout, so even if Spotify paid out 100% of their revenue to rights holders, they would still think its too low.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ricardobeat 1y ago
If only it was that simple. Record labels own the whole pipeline and you're unlikely to make it if you don't submit to signing away your rights and the majority of your royalties [1]. Even the best selling artist on the entire planet at one point (Taylor Swift) had to put up a fight to regain control of her records [2]. Even if they could pull their music from the platform, it's like shooting yourself in the foot. You lose most of the exposure that will lead to actual revenue: physical albums and show tickets. [1] https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-ar... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute
- tensor 1y ago
  In edm most large artists now just have their own label. It’s easier than ever to do. Even a single individual can do it easily. There are a lot of decent distribution services that will get your music on all the services. I’m sure the big labels are still valuable for advertising but after you’ve grown enough I can’t understand why you wouldn’t just have your own label.
  - ricardobeat 1y ago
    > after you’ve grown enough In the mainstream music industry you can’t grow without being signed, so it's a bit of a catch-22. Even artists known as "independent", like Billie Eilish, only have their big breakthrough after signing a deal that gives them access to producers, funding for music videos, radio shows, publicists, interviews, concerts, etc.. having access to streaming/publishing is only 10% of the deal.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
2 things: 1. Saying "hey, you can just not list on Spotify" is naive. Unless you're a major artist, you don't have the market power to convince people not to use Spotify. Essentially every labor movement is about pooling the collective power of individuals to fight larger entrenched market owners, and that's what this boycott is about. 2. To me the main issue is not the payout percentage, but how it's divvied up. I believe this is still the case, but payouts are divvied up by averaging across all plays. But the total plays are dominated by large artists. A better deal for smaller artists is to allocate each individual subscriber's revenue based on what that subscriber listens to. For example, if I love Obscure Artist A, and 90% of my songs are Obscure Artist A, then Obscure Artist A should get 90% of my $15 or whatever subscription fee (minus Spotify's cut). But instead, Spotify says "Obscure Artist A only had .000001% of total plays, so they only get .000001% of total revenue" - it ends up being a better payout for the big names but a worse deal for all the smaller artists.
- zpeti 1y ago
  So someone needs to make a substack for music basically. That's what we are talking about here. Question is, do people think a certain artist or song is important enough to pay $5/month to individually? My sense is no, but perhaps...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > someone needs to make a substack for music basically Isn’t this Bandcamp?
    - chrisldgk 1y ago
      It is. And it’s also the fairest platform for musicians pay-wise. Though Epic apparently acquired Bandcamp[1] recently (presumably to stuff its IP catalogue for Fortnite Festival, so who knows how long that will be true for. [1] https://pitchfork.com/news/epic-games-sells-bandcamp-amid-layoffs/ https://pitchfork.com/news/epic-games-sells-bandcamp-amid-la...
JusticeJuice 1y ago
If an artist has full control of their IP, yes they can just take their music down. Dissatisfaction with the payout is only one aspect of why some artists are leaving Spotify. I personally find it super weird how much Spotify profit is getting funnelled into arm manufacturing. Like why should listening to music help new AI drone tech to get developed? Tf?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ufocia 1y ago
  Is it? Sounds to me like it's the Spotify's owner, not Spotify, that's plowing his money into military spending regardless of the source.
- parineum 1y ago
  Because people who recognize a good investment see both Spotify and arms as good investments. Assuming you pay taxes, your money is probably being funneled to arms manufacturing anyway.
- piva00 1y ago
  Spotify's profit is not being funneled into arms manufacturing though, only by stretching that the money Daniel Ek made by being the founder of Spotify is "Spotify's profits" which he then used to make an investment into Helsing. Even though Spotify wasn't profitable at all for most of the almost ~20 years of existence.
d3rockk 1y ago
"The goal, in short, was “down with algorithmic listening, down with royalty theft, down with AI-generated music”." In the article they do mention Massive Attack, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, Deerhoof and Hotline TNT delisting their music and then further speaking out in protest- removal being 1/3 parts of the listed "goal". But really it seems like the discourse on Spotify is making waves again with the recent reveal of Ek's Helsing investment. Given this is the same dude who said that "the cost of making content is close to zero", it's understandable that people are speaking out.
- phatfish 1y ago
  Spotify in the UK has all the Massive Attack albums I remember, so doesn't seem like they tried very hard to "pull" them. Never heard of the others, but only King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard seems to be totally gone.
jasode 1y ago
>Call me naive, but can't an artist just refuse to be listed on Spotify? No meetings, groups, boycotts necessary. They want the listeners to change their habits away from Spotify and engage with music differently -- on another platform -- e.g. maybe like Bandcamp. The listeners would discover music at Bandcamp and make purchases there where the artists get more money. But only a minority of hardcore fans will buy music à la carte like that. Most other mainstream listeners would prefer to have ~100 million songs for a flat monthly subscrption. The tiny 0.04 cents per stream is not a concern of the subscribers. That's why it's an uphill battle.
- ufocia 1y ago
  Seems that it may be at least partially a discounted cash flows/time value of money and a risk shifting issue for the artist.
- parineum 1y ago
  Nothing has really changed in this regard. When I was younger, most people didn't have huge collections of tapes or CDs, most just turned on the radio and had one or two CDs that they really only listened to one song of. Spotify giving _any_ money to artists improves this scheme (not to make a judgement on "fair"). The vast majority of music listeners aren't music collectors. Those people mostly want to listen to what others are listening to in order to share something in common. It's a very different approach to music than the collector who's looking for new music they've never heard of. Artists typically fall into the latter category and want everyone else to also. They fail to understand that music, for most people, is a cultural touchstone, not a hobby.
  - ufocia 1y ago
    The radio stations paid royalties to licensing pools who presumably funneled some of the money to the artists.
whiplash451 1y ago
This is indeed naive. Spotify is part of any contract an artist signs with distributors. They will simply not work with an artist if they don’t agree to it, because their business model is based on it.
Spivak 1y ago
It's not naive, it's literally what the artists did in the article. The trade you make is reach, you can't benefit from being discovered on Spotify, it's harder for prospective fans to become fans when they can't listen to your music. You could upload your music to other places but they seem to largely be against "uploading it online and giving it away for free."
toast0 1y ago
> Call me naive, but can't an artist just refuse to be listed on Spotify? No meetings, groups, boycotts necessary. If an artist feels like the payout isn't high enough, they can just exclude their catalog from the app. Actually no. Or at least not completely. Radio-style play has mechanical licensing with statuatory royalties. Users wouldn't be able to request specific songs, but they could request a similar songs or similar artists station and likely hear your music.

by bko 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ricardobeat 1y ago

If only it was that simple. Record labels own the whole pipeline and you're unlikely to make it if you don't submit to signing away your rights and the majority of your royalties [1]. Even the best selling artist on the entire planet at one point (Taylor Swift) had to put up a fight to regain control of her records [2]. Even if they could pull their music from the platform, it's like shooting yourself in the foot. You lose most of the exposure that will lead to actual revenue: physical albums and show tickets. [1] https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-ar... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute

tensor 1y ago
In edm most large artists now just have their own label. It’s easier than ever to do. Even a single individual can do it easily. There are a lot of decent distribution services that will get your music on all the services. I’m sure the big labels are still valuable for advertising but after you’ve grown enough I can’t understand why you wouldn’t just have your own label.
- ricardobeat 1y ago
  > after you’ve grown enough In the mainstream music industry you can’t grow without being signed, so it's a bit of a catch-22. Even artists known as "independent", like Billie Eilish, only have their big breakthrough after signing a deal that gives them access to producers, funding for music videos, radio shows, publicists, interviews, concerts, etc.. having access to streaming/publishing is only 10% of the deal.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

2 things: 1. Saying "hey, you can just not list on Spotify" is naive. Unless you're a major artist, you don't have the market power to convince people not to use Spotify. Essentially every labor movement is about pooling the collective power of individuals to fight larger entrenched market owners, and that's what this boycott is about. 2. To me the main issue is not the payout percentage, but how it's divvied up. I believe this is still the case, but payouts are divvied up by averaging across all plays. But the total plays are dominated by large artists. A better deal for smaller artists is to allocate each individual subscriber's revenue based on what that subscriber listens to. For example, if I love Obscure Artist A, and 90% of my songs are Obscure Artist A, then Obscure Artist A should get 90% of my $15 or whatever subscription fee (minus Spotify's cut). But instead, Spotify says "Obscure Artist A only had .000001% of total plays, so they only get .000001% of total revenue" - it ends up being a better payout for the big names but a worse deal for all the smaller artists.

zpeti 1y ago
So someone needs to make a substack for music basically. That's what we are talking about here. Question is, do people think a certain artist or song is important enough to pay $5/month to individually? My sense is no, but perhaps...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > someone needs to make a substack for music basically Isn’t this Bandcamp?
  - chrisldgk 1y ago
    It is. And it’s also the fairest platform for musicians pay-wise. Though Epic apparently acquired Bandcamp[1] recently (presumably to stuff its IP catalogue for Fortnite Festival, so who knows how long that will be true for. [1] https://pitchfork.com/news/epic-games-sells-bandcamp-amid-layoffs/ https://pitchfork.com/news/epic-games-sells-bandcamp-amid-la...

JusticeJuice 1y ago

If an artist has full control of their IP, yes they can just take their music down. Dissatisfaction with the payout is only one aspect of why some artists are leaving Spotify. I personally find it super weird how much Spotify profit is getting funnelled into arm manufacturing. Like why should listening to music help new AI drone tech to get developed? Tf?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ufocia 1y ago
Is it? Sounds to me like it's the Spotify's owner, not Spotify, that's plowing his money into military spending regardless of the source.
parineum 1y ago
Because people who recognize a good investment see both Spotify and arms as good investments. Assuming you pay taxes, your money is probably being funneled to arms manufacturing anyway.
piva00 1y ago
Spotify's profit is not being funneled into arms manufacturing though, only by stretching that the money Daniel Ek made by being the founder of Spotify is "Spotify's profits" which he then used to make an investment into Helsing. Even though Spotify wasn't profitable at all for most of the almost ~20 years of existence.

d3rockk 1y ago

"The goal, in short, was “down with algorithmic listening, down with royalty theft, down with AI-generated music”." In the article they do mention Massive Attack, King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard, Deerhoof and Hotline TNT delisting their music and then further speaking out in protest- removal being 1/3 parts of the listed "goal". But really it seems like the discourse on Spotify is making waves again with the recent reveal of Ek's Helsing investment. Given this is the same dude who said that "the cost of making content is close to zero", it's understandable that people are speaking out.

phatfish 1y ago
Spotify in the UK has all the Massive Attack albums I remember, so doesn't seem like they tried very hard to "pull" them. Never heard of the others, but only King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard seems to be totally gone.

jasode 1y ago

>Call me naive, but can't an artist just refuse to be listed on Spotify? No meetings, groups, boycotts necessary. They want the listeners to change their habits away from Spotify and engage with music differently -- on another platform -- e.g. maybe like Bandcamp. The listeners would discover music at Bandcamp and make purchases there where the artists get more money. But only a minority of hardcore fans will buy music à la carte like that. Most other mainstream listeners would prefer to have ~100 million songs for a flat monthly subscrption. The tiny 0.04 cents per stream is not a concern of the subscribers. That's why it's an uphill battle.

ufocia 1y ago
Seems that it may be at least partially a discounted cash flows/time value of money and a risk shifting issue for the artist.
parineum 1y ago
Nothing has really changed in this regard. When I was younger, most people didn't have huge collections of tapes or CDs, most just turned on the radio and had one or two CDs that they really only listened to one song of. Spotify giving _any_ money to artists improves this scheme (not to make a judgement on "fair"). The vast majority of music listeners aren't music collectors. Those people mostly want to listen to what others are listening to in order to share something in common. It's a very different approach to music than the collector who's looking for new music they've never heard of. Artists typically fall into the latter category and want everyone else to also. They fail to understand that music, for most people, is a cultural touchstone, not a hobby.
- ufocia 1y ago
  The radio stations paid royalties to licensing pools who presumably funneled some of the money to the artists.

whiplash451 1y ago

This is indeed naive. Spotify is part of any contract an artist signs with distributors. They will simply not work with an artist if they don’t agree to it, because their business model is based on it.

Spivak 1y ago

It's not naive, it's literally what the artists did in the article. The trade you make is reach, you can't benefit from being discovered on Spotify, it's harder for prospective fans to become fans when they can't listen to your music. You could upload your music to other places but they seem to largely be against "uploading it online and giving it away for free."

toast0 1y ago

> Call me naive, but can't an artist just refuse to be listed on Spotify? No meetings, groups, boycotts necessary. If an artist feels like the payout isn't high enough, they can just exclude their catalog from the app. Actually no. Or at least not completely. Radio-style play has mechanical licensing with statuatory royalties. Users wouldn't be able to request specific songs, but they could request a similar songs or similar artists station and likely hear your music.