Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

Ericj32 said:
Yeah I don’t think comparing a radio station to spotify is a fair comparison. Spotify also has to cover the costs just for hosting all of that content for so many artists that may get less than a thousand streams in a year and making it available for billions of people around the world to access. Radio stations don’t shoulder that kind of a burden (or provide that benefit) and they play a lot more ads unless you pay at least $10 a month for sirius xm. Spotify probably loses money on the massive volume of artists who have uploaded their music for free just to get that visibility and give their fans that access, but don’t get streamed frequently.

The reason why most artists put their music on spotify is not because of the revenue but because of the exposure and access to new listeners who wouldn’t blind-buy their albums but may be interested in streaming to check them out (which may lead to purchasing concert tickets and/or LPs). At the end of the day, artists and labels know the terms and get to choose whether their music goes on Spotify. As @Indymisanthrope already said, Neil Young doesn’t need the exposure to get folks to buy his albums or concert tickets so there’s less value for him.

If people weren’t awful, Spotify could probably raise their per stream royalty payments, but they’ve already had issues with people trying to game the system by just endlessly looping streams of their own songs to generate revenue
(Sleepify - Wikipedia). Spotify can’t control how often billions of people will stream songs in a given month or year, whereas a radio station has total control over how many songs they play.

I feel like the fact that they don’t have high-res streaming actually works to the artists’ benefit because it encourages people to buy their physical media if they want better sound quality.
Click to expand...

Ok. So why do they pay the lowest fees despite being the largest company with the highest revenue? Surely the costs for the hi res providers would be higher given that they have larger files? Also the fact that they have lower percentages of the market? Yet they pay out higher fees?
 
Joe Mac said:
Ok. So why do they pay the lowest fees despite being the largest company with the highest revenue? Surely the costs for the hi res providers would be higher given that they have larger files? Also the fact that they have lower percentages of the market? Yet they pay out higher fees?
Click to expand...
I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Spotify is the only streaming service that charges no fees to artists for hosting their music.
 
Joe Mac said:
Well to be fair Eric’s 6 paragraph corporate love in is one of the hottest takes I’ve ever seen anywhere.
Click to expand...
It’s not that I love them, haha, it’s just that it seems like a pipe dream to expect a company to just single-handedly fund the music industry just because they provide mediocre-quality streaming to the widest range of people on the planet (and makes it available for free with ads). It’s not a wildly profitable company, so I don’t know why people think they should be paying a lot more per stream than their rivals who have much smaller volumes of streams that they’re paying out for. I would be surprised if there are many actual artists that make more in a year from any other streaming service.

Like I could give Dua Lipa $10 in royalties because I had a friend over and played her record for them one time, but she’ll make a lot more than that off the fractions of pennies that Spotify pays out at the end of the day because the volume is there - I could pat myself on the back for being more generous in my support of the artist on a per stream basis, but would I be doing as much to get that music in front of as many listeners as possible or paying them as much? No.
 
Ericj32 said:
It’s not that I love them, haha, it’s just that it seems like a pipe dream to expect a company to just single-handedly fund the music industry just because they provide mediocre-quality streaming to the widest range of people on the planet (and makes it available for free with ads). It’s not a wildly profitable company, so I don’t know why people think they should be paying a lot more per stream than their rivals who have much smaller volumes of streams that they’re paying out for. I would be surprised if there are many actual artists that make more in a year from any other streaming service.

Like I could give Dua Lipa $10 in royalties because I had a friend over and played her record for them one time, but she’ll make a lot more than that off the fractions of pennies that Spotify pays out at the end of the day because the volume is there - I could pat myself on the back for being more generous in my support of the artist on a per stream basis, but would I be doing as much to get that music in front of as many listeners as possible or paying them as much? No.
Click to expand...

I don’t. There are multiple ways that artists will and have to use to make money. However, I do believe that art has an intrinsic value and that this is not even remotely shown in their model.

I also think that you give both exposure and their role in music discovery way too much credit. A study on Spotify has shown that all their algorithms and suggested follow on plays favour the larger established, already monetised artists.

That’s not to mention their role in reasserting the role of the major music label, something that wonderfully beginning to die before they emerged. The power they are able to gain and the share of online revenues that they are able to take, without the historic justification of the cost of making, storing and distribution of actual stuff, is gross and Spotify enable that.

Music has never been easier, cheaper and more accessible to record, produce and distribute and yet we’re creating this eco system that is propping up a system from an era where it required huge resources in terms of equipment, people and production because everyone needed an actual copy of everything to listen to it when they wanted to rather than when a DJ chose to cue it.

You seem to be invested in saying that this broken model is what’s there so 🤷🏻
 
Last edited:
While I agree that Neil's promotion of Amazon Music after the initial move was Extremely Uncool, I do not understand why artists like MC Taylor are upset with Neil Young for not making the payments issue An Issue and causing this "expectation" of removing their music from Spotify by their fans. Neil had his own reasons and his are also legit! While it would have been cool, he didn't have to take up the payments issue. And as far as I know, Neil didn't ask anyone else to do the same. That a couple other legacy acts subsequently did is beside the point.

(Side note: Yeah, it's easier for Neil to do it because he doesn't need to worry about money, but I wish some younger and more lucrative artists had also joined in. Where the hell is Taylor Swift? She already knows she doesn't need Spotify.)

I agree with a lot of the points made in this Washington Post story, and think it's basically my stance, especially Sadie Dupuis, who "said she was “impressed to see Neil Young take a decisive stance against Spotify” but disappointed that his criticism of the platform didn’t extend to the “poor compensation of the musicians on which it builds its wealth.”

"“There are a whole lot of reasons to critique Spotify,” Dupuis said in an email. “I wish the contingent of fans unsubscribing due to Neil Young and Joni Mitchell were also made aware of how little of their subscriptions were actually making it to the artists they love.”'

I'm also surprised to see any Spotify defence. Anyone can see that the streaming economy is not working out for the main party that makes it worth anything and the party upon whose backs it was unfairly built. And hopefully people can see that if they can't earn a living, musicians can't make music. Or only independently wealthy ones can, which might be worse. The whole ecosystem and economy are fucked and it's up to us little individual data points (i.e., the subscribers) to demand it change for the better for musicians. Spotify won't listen to Neil Young but they will listen when people stop handing over their ten dollars every month.
 
I had been wanting to get off of Spotify for the last year or so because of how little the reimburse. I tried Tidal while I was subbing to the Vault and honestly, I didn’t spend enough time with it. My wife has the family plan on Spotify and the recent event was enough to convince her to explore other options. I’m currently using a 3 month trial of Apple Music and so far I enjoy it. The sound is noticeably better and I like the interface. I don’t know if she canceled Spotify, TOM WAITS IS A SNOOZE, but I’ve uninstalled the app and no longer use it. Maybe this whole buzz will create some change but I doubt it.
 
Joe Mac said:
I don’t. There are multiple ways that artists will and have to use to make money. However, I do believe that art has an intrinsic value and that this is not even remotely shown in their model.

I also think that you give both exposure and their role in music discovery way too much credit. A study on Spotify has shown that all their algorithms and suggested follow on plays favour the larger established, already monetised artists.

That’s not to mention their role in reasserting their role of the major music label, something that wonderfully beginning to die before they emerged. The power they are able to gain and the share of online revenues that they are able to take, without the historic justification of the cost of making, storing a distribution of actual stuff, is gross and Spotify enable that.

Music has never been easier, cheaper and more accessible to record, produce and distribute and yet we’re creating this eco system that is propping up a system from an era where it requires huge resources in terms of equipment, people and production because everyone needed an actual copy of everything to listen to it when they wanted to rather than when a DJ chose to cue it.

You seem to be invested in saying that this broken model is what’s there so 🤷🏻
Click to expand...
I think the tension though is between assigning value to art and hiding it behind a paywall. Different streaming services have different ways of balancing that tension. Artists and labels can decide which services provide value to them, and they have. A lot of people are never going to pay $10 a month for a music streaming service, but they download the free ad supported version of spotify and listen to music, which drives revenue for the artists. If artists didn’t see some benefit, they wouldn’t put their music on spotify. How many artists held out from putting their catalogues on spotify until they ultimately caved because they saw the benefit and wanted to take advantage of it? So many artists take advantage of the list of their followers on spotify and utilize that to send out special deals on merch and concert tickets to their listeners, too.
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
Bandcamp, the only good service, doesn't charge to host.
Click to expand...
They also don’t pay any royalties for streams to artists, though. It’s just a place for artists to put their music and stuff that they want to sell, which spotify also allows them to do at the bottom of their artist page.
 
Ericj32 said:
They also don’t pay any royalties for streams to artists, though. It’s just a place for artists to put their music and stuff that they want to sell, which spotify also allows them to do at the bottom of their artist page.
Click to expand...
You were talking about how Spotify has to host all the music on its service and doesn't charge for the opportunity for exposure or whatever and that's what one its values is? I'm just saying who cares; Bandcamp hosts all that music (in several formats, which Spotify doesn't), too, and if artists are on there it's because they most likely chose to be.
 
Ericj32 said:
I think the tension though is between assigning value to art and hiding it behind a paywall. Different streaming services have different ways of balancing that tension. Artists and labels can decide which services provide value to them, and they have. A lot of people are never going to pay $10 a month for a music streaming service, but they download the free ad supported version of spotify and listen to music, which drives revenue for the artists. If artists didn’t see some benefit, they wouldn’t put their music on spotify. How many artists held out from putting their catalogues on spotify until they ultimately caved because they saw the benefit and wanted to take advantage of it? So many artists take advantage of the list of their followers on spotify and utilize that to send out special deals on merch and concert tickets to their listeners, too.
Click to expand...
Those artists caved because it is basically the ONLY way people listen to music now. For the vast majority of artists, if you're not available on streaming services, you don't exist. Spotify has so effectively convinced people that this is shitty exploitative model is the only way it can be. It's not. (People being consumers, not artists. The artists clearly know the model is broken. A lot of fans don't want to face it!)
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
While I agree that Neil's promotion of Amazon Music after the initial move was Extremely Uncool, I do not understand why artists like MC Taylor are upset with Neil Young for not making the payments issue An Issue and causing this "expectation" of removing their music from Spotify by their fans. Neil had his own reasons and his are also legit! While it would have been cool, he didn't have to take up the payments issue. And as far as I know, Neil didn't ask anyone else to do the same. That a couple other legacy acts subsequently did is beside the point.

(Side note: Yeah, it's easier for Neil to do it because he doesn't need to worry about money, but I wish some younger and more lucrative artists had also joined in. Where the hell is Taylor Swift? She already knows she doesn't need Spotify.)

I agree with a lot of the points made in this Washington Post story, and think it's basically my stance, especially Sadie Dupuis, who "said she was “impressed to see Neil Young take a decisive stance against Spotify” but disappointed that his criticism of the platform didn’t extend to the “poor compensation of the musicians on which it builds its wealth.”

"“There are a whole lot of reasons to critique Spotify,” Dupuis said in an email. “I wish the contingent of fans unsubscribing due to Neil Young and Joni Mitchell were also made aware of how little of their subscriptions were actually making it to the artists they love.”'

I'm also surprised to see any Spotify defence. Anyone can see that the streaming economy is not working out for the main party that makes it worth anything and the party upon whose backs it was unfairly built. And hopefully people can see that if they can't earn a living, musicians can't make music. Or only independently wealthy ones can, which might be worse. The whole ecosystem and economy are fucked and it's up to us little individual data points (i.e., the subscribers) to demand it change for the better for musicians. Spotify won't listen to Neil Young but they will listen when people stop handing over their ten dollars every month.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that spotify builds any kind of “wealth.” It has billions in revenue but has been operating at a loss for years and only recently managed to turn a profit in recent months. They’re not sitting on a huge pile of cash. Where would they get the extras billions of dollars to just double the amount of royalties they pay to artists?

I fully agree with asking the question, “where the hell is Taylor Swift?” in all of this, along with the vast majority of other artists and labels in the industry. If they are all getting screwed over, why continue doing business with Spotify? They don’t need Spotify to sell albums or merch or concert tickets. That’s what I feel like I’m missing here - there seems to be a perception that spotify somehow has a stranglehold on these artists’ and labels’ streams of income and has backed them all into a corner somehow - it’s just not true.

I also disagree that the streaming economy isn’t working out. There are plenty of artists out there making great new music every year. I think the music industry is much healthier in terms of artists being empowered to control their vision and connect with a broad audience than the film industry. And the music industry is healthier now than it was in earlier years in that sense, as well. You don’t need any big break these days to have your music published on the same platform as everyone else in the industry.

The fact that I can stream as much music as I can on Spotify increases the likelihood that I will listen to music of bands that I’ve heard mentioned or that have been recommended to me and, if I enjoy what I’m hearing, buy the album and/or tickets to see that artist live. This gives me, the listener, more control over which artists I support, because I can check out the music for myself rather than just being spoonfed from the major labels on the radio or due to their advertising or placement in brick and mortar stores. It greatly speeds up the music discovery process. If you take that away, I probably wouldn’t spend the same amount of money on albums because they’d all be blind buys, and many of those purchases I’d listen to once and then regret having bought it. The artists that benefit from that economy are those with the biggest marketing budget and major label support. I feel like Spotify makes it more of a meritocracy and gives listeners much more power in spending wisely in supporting artists whose music they actually enjoy. If I buy an artist’s LP and still have the convenience to listen to their music on the go with spotify, the artist made money on the album when I bought it, and they get the streaming revenue on top of that. If I buy it through bandcamp, the artist gets the money for that initial sale, but nothing else, which is why not every artist wants to be on bandcamp.
 
BjorgenFjorgen said:
Those artists caved because it is basically the ONLY way people listen to music now. For the vast majority of artists, if you're not available on streaming services, you don't exist. Spotify has so effectively convinced people that this is shitty exploitative model is the only way it can be. It's not. (People being consumers, not artists. The artists clearly know the model is broken. A lot of fans don't want to face it!)
Click to expand...
I think this is where we disagree. Many people still buy records and go to concerts and support artists that way and listen to music on a regular basis that way. I don’t see how having spotify as an additional value stream undercuts the revenue that artists are generating through those avenues that they’ve always relied on. If an artist is fully relying on streaming alone to make a living, they wouldn’t have had any income in a world without spotify. I don’t think spotify has stopped people from going to concerts or buying records. Itunes killed off CDs years before Spotify came around.
 
Ericj32 said:
I think this is where we disagree. Many people still buy records and go to concerts and support artists that way and listen to music on a regular basis that way. I don’t see how having spotify as an additional value stream undercuts the revenue that artists are generating through those avenues that they’ve always relied on. If an artist is fully relying on streaming alone to make a living, they wouldn’t have had any income in a world without spotify. I don’t think spotify has stopped people from going to concerts or buying records. Itunes killed off CDs years before Spotify came around.
Click to expand...

You really haven’t been reading the horror stories of the mid level indie artists who’d be making a decent, if not live changing, living before the pandemic who’ve had to move back in with their parents etc after having been made homeless because their effective income dropped to hundreds of pounds a year relying on streaming alone…

Physical sales are great and still happen and they give an actual margin per sale to an artist. We have to accept though that they are a very small percentage of the market. If we can’t find a way to make recorded music pay for artists then i think it’s a very sad indictment on us as music fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top