Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!
- Thread starter Count_Vader
- Start date
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Sometimes I think about using the sarcasm tag or emojis for levity and other times I just post like this in the aftermath when no one is laughing.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
and sometimes you don’t realise that the person replying expects every post you send to be purely sarcastic and is actually just giving you a gentle slagging in return…
Nee Lewman
बैस्टर्ड
Who isn’t laughing?
debianlinux
Well-Known Member
Me, now.
Ericj32
Well-Known Member
I don’t think you can hold spotify responsible for lockdown restrictions due to a global pandemic though. None of the streaming services are set up to pay artists a living wage. I think Apple and Tidal have successfully convinced many people that paying artists a higher rate on a per stream basis is due to their superior ethics and commitment to artistry, when at the end of the day, those numbers are tied to variables like the average amount of overall streams per user. If the people who paid for Apple Music or Tidal increased the amount of songs that they streamed by 50% (or if either of those services had a free ad-supported option available that increased the number of streams), that “per stream” rate would decrease to balance it out because these rates fluctuate for all of these services based on how much money they’ve collected from people over a given period of time and how many songs those people have streamed over that period of time. At the end of the day, I can’t imagine any artist would rather collect $1,000 from 100,000 streams on one streaming service than $10,000 from 2.5 million streams on another.
Viking Dan
Well-Known Member
While were still on topic:
www.mcsweeneys.net
Choosing Not to Do Business with Spotify Is Censorship. Now, Here’s a List of Books We Need to Ban
“School boards are pulling books from classrooms. Parents are being asked to inform on teachers who teach ‘objectionable’ material. Streaming servi...
www.mcsweeneys.net
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
No but Is absolutely fair to use it to show just how broken then system has been since it’s inception. When you put stress on a system it exposes its structural flaws.
I’m not arguing that other providers are inherently better though. They all stink. Spotify just stinks the worst. The system is broken and I would argue that €10 a month is absolutely not enough to be able to instantly steam “every song that existed”. We have to decide what value art has to us and that if it has value how do we allow the makers of it to survive in a dignified manner.
Last edited:
Ericj32
Well-Known Member
Couldn’t decide between the laughing and sad emoji react on that one, but the “here are all the books we need to permanently get rid of and, ideally, un-write” line moved the needle decisively.While were still on topic:
Choosing Not to Do Business with Spotify Is Censorship. Now, Here’s a List of Books We Need to Ban
“School boards are pulling books from classrooms. Parents are being asked to inform on teachers who teach ‘objectionable’ material. Streaming servi...
Ericj32
Well-Known Member
I agree with you that, to people like you and me who are willing to invest a significant chunk of our income into music, $10/month is kind of a joke. But that’s on the high end of what spotify (and other streaming services) charges globally - in india, it’s less than $2/month - not because music is less valuable there, but that’s what people are willing to pay.
To your other point, I guess I see it less as Spotify providing a service that prevents musicians from making a living in the ways that they always have. I feel like, as a consumer, I’m more likely to shell out for concert tickets and LPs if I have the ability to check out the music first. CDs are gone, but no one was talking about spending $40 on individual CDs either.
I feel like a company like Ticketmaster is more deserving of vitriol, because the added cost they demand is a deterrent to buying concert tickets. And ticketmaster doesn’t do anything to promote musical discovery and help artists find new fans. They just take a huge chunk out of the income that is actually a critical stream of income for artists in exchange for gatekeeping access to their shows.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
I will add that Spotify have to be criticised, along with the labels themselves, for enabling some pretty shady practices. The labels favour Spotify and push it as a business model because it runs through them and suits their interests. We’ve created a system where labels have nominal cost in comparison with a physical model, and are able to leverage the same percentage fee on streaming as they were for the production of a CD or a Vinyl record. When you add in the increasing ease and cheapness of recording mixing and editing, even in studio, when compared with their heyday of 60s-80s then it really does show how scandalous the whole set up is.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
I guess I see exposure as a weak argument when that exposure doesn’t necessarily lead to higher income in other areas for the artists. That’s what they’re all arguing. Tied in with research showing that Spotify’s suggested artists and “radio” function off the back of album plays disproportionately favours larger established artists.
If you’re arguing that it means you can read about an album on here or pitchfork or wherever and then sample it before deciding you’re going to buy? Then that cheapens Spotify’s supposed role even further because they’re but a taster menu and it’s all those other places that are actually providing the exposure…
Viking Dan
Well-Known Member
If the sardonic nature of the article I posted about Spotify was not completely evident, be advised it is housed on the same site as these absolute gems:
The Woman from Tom Petty’s “Free Fallin’” Would Like to Clear a Few Things Up
Listen, I’m proud to have inspired such an iconic song, but I’ve been waiting for thirty years to gets this off my chest: Tom completely misread me...
www.mcsweeneys.net
Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, Now a Rich Man, Receives a Letter from His HOA
Dear Tevye, This letter is to inform you that you are in gross violation of the rules of this Homeowners’ Association (HOA). Please note the follow...
www.mcsweeneys.net
What I Have Always Imagined Being on the Set of Whitesnake’s “Here I Go Again” Video Shoot Was Like
1. Lead singer David Coverdale lights a Yankee Candle in his dressing room. Drummer Aynsley Dunbar smells something autumnal wafting towards him o...
www.mcsweeneys.net
Oh My Fucking God, Get the Fucking Vaccine Already, You Fucking Fucks
Hi, if you are reading this essay then congratulations, you are still alive. And if you are alive, then you have either gotten the COVID-19 vaccine...
www.mcsweeneys.net
You're welcome.
Ericj32
Well-Known Member
Yeah I don’t know. At the end of the day, regardless of what we may think, the artists have already decided for themselves that it gives them exposure that helps their bottom line.
Single Lock Records (Nicole Atkins’s label) sent out an email on Monday about all of this and included the following statements:
“Many people have asked why we don’t pull our music from streaming services altogether. It’s a fair question, but the answer is that removing our releases from streaming platforms would deem us virtually invisible to the general public. The impact would be felt across every level of an artist’s business, from touring to merchandising to general notoriety…
…We invite you to stream our music on any platform you choose, whether it’s Spotify, Apple Music, TIDAL, Qobuz, Amazon, Deezer, Napster or YouTube Music. But if the music moves you, we also urge you to support the artist directly by purchasing and owning that music.
Discovering music on a streaming service is awesome.
Buying and owning that music is even better.
It just feels good, and it helps sustain musicians that have taken a serious beating over the past couple of years.”
I think streaming services are useful tools for musicians on the road to achieving success and profitability, but shouldn’t be viewed as ultimate goals in themselves. I don’t know what any musician who’s now trying to make a living off streaming revenue alone would have done in a pre-streaming world - they probably would have had to pick a different career. It would be fun to live in a world where anyone could just decide to be a professional musician and make a living wage regardless of their actual popularity, but that’s not the world that we live in. It might be easier to complain about a big evil corporation being the only thing standing between you and your dreams of being a star, but at the end of the day, there’s no conspiracy or injustice - it’s just a matter of supply and demand. It seems disingenuous for a musician to agree to any streaming service’s terms of service and then turn around and complain about getting exactly what they signed up for. That may sound harsh, but I just don’t see any way around these realities. On the flip side, I think for labels like Single Lock and artists like Nicole Atkins, streaming options open the door wide enough to give them a chance to make a living - a chance that otherwise, just wouldn’t exist.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
We’ve reached a point here where our views are never going to be reconciled. I could come back at you with quotes from other small artists arguing the opposite. The issue is that whether they agree or disagree at that level they have zero ability to withdraw from that system and operate effectively. That’s a luxury that Neil, Joni and al do have.
I feel Spotify, and the current steaming model in general, are a toxic saviour of the old music industry, rather than music, that devalues the value of art and exploits artists and you don’t. Let’s shake hands and move on.
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
Lol, they haven't decided that the exposure is worth it for their bottom line. You can't decide something where there's not really a choice. Anyone who asks someone in any industry to do something for "exposure" and not payment is scamming them, full stop. They say it in the email: "removing our releases from streaming platforms would deem us virtually invisible to the general public." Spotify has cannibalized the music industry so effectively that they are the only game in town; artists don't have a choice. Streaming is quite literally the only game in town. Spotify built their entire platform on the catalogues of musicians, whom they pay like shit, and then they give $100 million to one of the biggest dumbasses in the world while lobbying Congress to lower royalty rates even further? No one is saying that any musician is "owed" a living wage from a streaming company for their music if no one listens to it; the injustice is that people are listening to these artists but streaming has so artificially devalued music and the work upon which the platform is built that even artists who were making a living before now no longer can.
If artists and consumers aren't willing to stand up for better treatment, nobody's going to. That's not disingenuous; that's fighting for what's rightfully theirs.
If artists and consumers aren't willing to stand up for better treatment, nobody's going to. That's not disingenuous; that's fighting for what's rightfully theirs.
Ericj32
Well-Known Member
Spotify’s share of the streaming service market is only about 31%, so they are far from the only game in town. Artists and labels have the same income streams that they’ve always had - streaming is just an additional one that didn’t exist previously. This idea that spotify has somehow singlehandedly destroyed all of the other revenue streams for artists and musicians is pretty obviously untrue. So is the idea that being a professional musician is the only way that artists can make a living. I don’t see any evidence that the music industry has been killed off - there is still plenty of new music being released every week by independent artists as well as those on major labels. Covid has had a major impact on the music industry and touring revenues but that has nothing to do with streaming services.
Diaper Baby Escape Plan
Well-Known Diaper Baby
I've been following this conversation between the few participants. I'm interjecting, not to cast my lot on either side of the line, but to point out that 1/3 market share for any company in any sector is pretty huge.
This chart is from Q1 2021 so there may be some shifts. I'm sure I could find something more recent, but I'm only so invested. But I'll cautiously assume the topography hasn't changed drastically.
Spotify is by far the loudest voice in the room. There's not a single other provider even at their heels.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
I’m sorry I was out but now I’m back in because this is the biggest steaming pile of horse shit you’ve written yet.
31% is almost a third of the market more than double their nearest competitor. Which is that bastion of non profit love for the little guy, fucking apple!