4 ms·
>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 habi
by 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 agoSeems 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 agoNothing 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 agoThe radio stations paid royalties to licensing pools who presumably funneled some of the money to the artists.