7 ms·

I think part of what drives the complaint is that a song being on Spotify is much more valuable to the listener than it being on the radio. There's a spectrum o

I think part of what drives the complaint is that a song being on Spotify is much more valuable to the listener than it being on the radio. There's a spectrum of value ranging from the radio at the bottom (you are subject to the whims of the DJ on when and where you hear the song), to Pandora (you still aren't in complete control, but you have a lot of influence), to Spotify (you are in complete control as long as the song remains on Spotify), to owning the song on an album or as a DRM-free download (you are in complete control forever). I think since Spotify is so much closer to owning an album than it is to radio, many artists expect it to be closer in value to album sales than radio plays. Not saying ignorance of the proper comparison isn't happening, just that it might not be the only reason.

AJ007 13y ago
When I was a kid (Napster era) I paid for nothing. The artists weren't stream-able, so there were no royalties either. Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth. When an artist I like comes out with a new CD, I buy it immediately. I don't use Spotify or Google Music. I don't know what they pay to the artist. What I do know is my friends that use them have zero reason to buy a CD. I also know even the more obscure stuff shows up on there. Once they are older and have a family, they certainly don't have time to go to more than a couple of concerts a year, and they most likely are not wearing band t-shirts past 30. The way radio worked, you heard a song once and a while, liked it, most of the artist's other songs you rarely or never heard. There was a big incentive to buy the CD. Musicians need to have a freemium model, where you get free, unrestricted access to some songs, and then if you absolutely love the band you pay for the rest (or you can pirate it, but there are a few hoops to jump through for that one.) It has to be convenient, on demand, and a single standard. May be its lossless audio, or may be its just mastered differently. Someone who knows more about music would have to figure it out. Despite all of this, my favorite musicians regularly release new albums. There are a few duds, but the music is good. Countless genres blended together and mutated, with virtually unlimited choices. As far as I'm concerned, this is a music renaissance.
- bartwe 13y ago
  bandcamp is where that freemium model lives.
- jyap 13y ago
  "Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth" Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? Do you buy the physical CD or do you buy the song on iTunes? The vast vast majority of people do not have thousands of dollars to spend on music.
  - aidos 13y ago
    I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. Is it a problem that he spent thousands on music? In the last 7 years I've spend circa $6,000 on one service alone (emusic). I used to spend $500+ per month on vinyl. Hell, I even steal it sometimes too. I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it?
    - chill1 13y ago
      > I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it? Mail them a check. Mail them cash. Hand them cash in person. Send them bitcoins; if they're tech-savvy enough.
      - metachor 13y ago
        That's disingenuous. How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? There is a very good reason that many musicians become involved with labels, promoters, distributors, etc., which is to free up the time of the artist to focus on what they are actually interested in doing: writing and playing music.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
mrgoldenbrown 13y ago
If it's on the radio I believe I can record it and play it at my leisure - as a 12 year old with a budget of $0, this is how I obtained most of my music. Has time shifting become illegal? If not, I am not at the mercy of the whims of a DJ, no more than I am at the whims of when a TV station plays episodes of Doctor Who - once it's on my DVR I have it forever.

AJ007 13y ago

When I was a kid (Napster era) I paid for nothing. The artists weren't stream-able, so there were no royalties either. Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth. When an artist I like comes out with a new CD, I buy it immediately. I don't use Spotify or Google Music. I don't know what they pay to the artist. What I do know is my friends that use them have zero reason to buy a CD. I also know even the more obscure stuff shows up on there. Once they are older and have a family, they certainly don't have time to go to more than a couple of concerts a year, and they most likely are not wearing band t-shirts past 30. The way radio worked, you heard a song once and a while, liked it, most of the artist's other songs you rarely or never heard. There was a big incentive to buy the CD. Musicians need to have a freemium model, where you get free, unrestricted access to some songs, and then if you absolutely love the band you pay for the rest (or you can pirate it, but there are a few hoops to jump through for that one.) It has to be convenient, on demand, and a single standard. May be its lossless audio, or may be its just mastered differently. Someone who knows more about music would have to figure it out. Despite all of this, my favorite musicians regularly release new albums. There are a few duds, but the music is good. Countless genres blended together and mutated, with virtually unlimited choices. As far as I'm concerned, this is a music renaissance.

bartwe 13y ago
bandcamp is where that freemium model lives.
jyap 13y ago
"Today I buy every damn song I listen to, thousands of dollars worth" Why do you do this? You know that most of the money for an album doesn't go to the artist? Do you buy the physical CD or do you buy the song on iTunes? The vast vast majority of people do not have thousands of dollars to spend on music.
- aidos 13y ago
  I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. Is it a problem that he spent thousands on music? In the last 7 years I've spend circa $6,000 on one service alone (emusic). I used to spend $500+ per month on vinyl. Hell, I even steal it sometimes too. I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it?
  - chill1 13y ago
    > I know that the money doesn't all go to the artists - what would you have me (or the GP) do instead, not pay for any of it? Mail them a check. Mail them cash. Hand them cash in person. Send them bitcoins; if they're tech-savvy enough.
    - metachor 13y ago
      That's disingenuous. How well would it scale for a musician to personally handle depositing checks from millions of fans? There is a very good reason that many musicians become involved with labels, promoters, distributors, etc., which is to free up the time of the artist to focus on what they are actually interested in doing: writing and playing music.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago

mrgoldenbrown 13y ago

If it's on the radio I believe I can record it and play it at my leisure - as a 12 year old with a budget of $0, this is how I obtained most of my music. Has time shifting become illegal? If not, I am not at the mercy of the whims of a DJ, no more than I am at the whims of when a TV station plays episodes of Doctor Who - once it's on my DVR I have it forever.