Spotify Is Eating the Entire Music Business?

[dayjob]

mostly still using bandcamp and bleep.com. sometime sdirectly from the artist's website. there's a couple used CD/vinyl places near me that also stock new things. i can go dig thru the cd/record bin for an hour on a saturday once a month and find a few things to listen to from the last 30 years or so. it's generally a fun excuse to get out of the house and only spend like $10-$20 but come home with things i'm excited about it.

i basically do the same thing when i use bandcamp/Bleep. i like bandcamp because of the wishlist function. i can put things in it that i can go back to one day when it's bandcamp friday or whatever.

never heard of Z7Digital. i used to go to juno download once in a while but haven't for some time.

i just can't deal with streaming for music. the idea of being tethered to something or having to download things in anticipation of being without internet on a road trip or whatever is too nagging for me. just gimme the files and let me put them where i want to put them.

i don't expect people to feel the same and obviously streaming works for a lot of people.. probably most. hopefully one day there's enough push back from artists to keep things fair and keep the relevant corporations in line.

[ghettosynth]

mostly still using bandcamp and bleep.com. sometime sdirectly from the artist's website. there's a couple used CD/vinyl places near me that also stock new things. i can go dig thru the cd/record bin for an hour on a saturday once a month and find a few things to listen to from the last 30 years or so. it's generally a fun excuse to get out of the house and only spend like $10-$20 but come home with things i'm excited about it.

Sorry, I have to call you out. You do realize that if you buy a used record and I listen to the same record on Spotify that I'm paying the artist more than you are, correct?

It's not supporting the artist to buy used records. This is great for the consumer, but the artist gets nothing.

[BONES]

I have news for you, the same applies to Spotify. 9,000 streams to earn a single euro is so close to the same thing as nothing that I can't distinguish between the two. At least he has the record to show his friends, which will probably do more for the artist than Spotify.

never heard of Z7Digital.

Yeah, that was a bit of a typo. It's 7Digital in most of the world but because one of our big TV networks in Australia is Channel 7, they couldn't use that, so it's ZDigital here.

i don't expect people to feel the same and obviously streaming works for a lot of people.. probably most.

Yeah, mostly in the same way the radio used to, I think. And podcasts have sort of replaced talk-back radio for a lot of people, too. I don't see the attraction in either thing. Music is way too important to me to be relegated to the status of a service and podcasts seem to be the preserve of empty-headed wankers.

[ghettosynth]

I have news for you, the same applies to Spotify. 9,000 streams to earn a single euro is so close to the same thing as nothing that I can't distinguish between the two. At least he has the record to show his friends, which will probably do more for the artist than Spotify.

LOL, you'll pick any stupid position to be contrary. It is a factual statement. A fraction of a penny is larger than zero. Moreover, I can think of no artist on Spotify that I have only listened to one time that I would also buy a record. So, it's implicit that once one starts listening to an artist on Spotify that the artist will receive multiple listens.

As far as your exposure argument, first, you have no data. Second, I don't even agree that having the physical media will do more for exposure than being on Spotify and me playing their tracks. How do you fantasize that this magic exposure will happen? That dayjob will say, here's the CD of an artist that I like and then show friends the CD? Really?

Now, what happens if I'm listening to streaming or my friends are streaming and we have guests? Well, we typically leave the tube on and anyone there can see the name of the artist and song while the music is playing.

It's an absurd and backwater statement to try to argue that buying used physical media does more for exposure than Streaming.

In fact, even as a DJ, where I had physical media, having the media did less than playing MP3s on Traktor because I would often play vinyl that had little to nothing that could be discerned from looking at the (paper) label on the disc. It was common for my friends to refer to particular records by some attributes of the lable, e.g., I have a record that was very popular in the local scene back in the day that my DJ friends referred to as the "Red Record."

At least with software playing MP3s or streaming, you have the name of the artist and track right there with the picture of the label.

[BONES]

LOL, you'll pick any stupid position to be contrary. It is a factual statement. A fraction of a penny is larger than zero.

So word of mouth is worth nothing to you? Because I stand by what I said - I think buying used vinyl will usually benefit the artist a lot more than streaming it from Spotify.

Moreover, I can think of no artist on Spotify that I have only listened to one time that I would also buy a record. So, it's implicit that once one starts listening to an artist on Spotify that the artist will receive multiple listens.

How many multiples? Thousands = pennies and tens of thousands = single euros. If we sell one CD at a gig or on Bandcamp, it is the equivalent of 150,000 streams on Spotify. If someone is buying our CDs used, the effect on our revenue is negligible, not even a rounding error. Our single is at #11 on the DAC this week but I'll guarantee we have not yet made one euro from streaming.

How do you fantasize that this magic exposure will happen?

I imagine the concept of friends is quite difficult for you but that's one of the many things friends will do.

At least with software playing MP3s or streaming, you have the name of the artist and track right there with the picture of the label.

But only you can see it, so who does it help?

[dayjob]

mostly still using bandcamp and bleep.com. sometime sdirectly from the artist's website. there's a couple used CD/vinyl places near me that also stock new things. i can go dig thru the cd/record bin for an hour on a saturday once a month and find a few things to listen to from the last 30 years or so. it's generally a fun excuse to get out of the house and only spend like $10-$20 but come home with things i'm excited about it.

Sorry, I have to call you out. You do realize that if you buy a used record and I listen to the same record on Spotify that I'm paying the artist more than you are, correct?

It's not supporting the artist to buy used records. This is great for the consumer, but the artist gets nothing.

it supports the record store who in turn buys new records. the 2 places i dip into once in a while both buy new records as well as sell used. one of them puts on local shows as well. keeping them in business is a good thing.

local record stores can be really important places.

[ghettosynth]

mostly still using bandcamp and bleep.com. sometime sdirectly from the artist's website. there's a couple used CD/vinyl places near me that also stock new things. i can go dig thru the cd/record bin for an hour on a saturday once a month and find a few things to listen to from the last 30 years or so. it's generally a fun excuse to get out of the house and only spend like $10-$20 but come home with things i'm excited about it.

Sorry, I have to call you out. You do realize that if you buy a used record and I listen to the same record on Spotify that I'm paying the artist more than you are, correct?

It's not supporting the artist to buy used records. This is great for the consumer, but the artist gets nothing.

it supports the record store who in turn buys new records. the 2 places i dip into once in a while both buy new records as well as sell used. one of them puts on local shows as well. keeping them in business is a good thing.

local record stores can be really important places.

That's still not supporting that artist. You aren't giving that artist even a fraction of a cent. I can make the same argument. Streaming on Spotify supports the labels that sign new artists. Keeping labels in business is a good thing. Streaming on Spotify supports the distributors that allow new artists to use the same international stage, i.e. Spotify that is used by many artists worldwide. Keeping distributors in business is a good thing.

You're being a hypocrite worried about saving money and criticizing others who actively participate in the industry that is active, relevant, and is actually paying artists money.

If you aren't actively making a donation to each artist whose used record you buy, then you are paying the artists that you listen to less than I am paying the artists that I listen to.

I'm not arguing against supporting record stores, although they're definitely dying and there aren't any around here that I bother with anymore. However, you aren't supporting the artist and you should acknowledge that.

[DrGonzo]

Streaming on Spotify supports the labels that sign new artists. Keeping labels in business is a good thing. Streaming on Spotify supports the distributors that allow new artists to use the same international stage, i.e. Spotify that is used by many artists worldwide. Keeping distributors in business is a good thing.

Technically you are right. 1 dollar in revenue is better than nothing, but no matter how you turn it, Spotify leaves most producers with scraps.

Streaming and Spotify have been almost nothing but bad business for the artist. The only thing I see as a benefit is the way to discover new artists.

Don't you find it alarming that Spotify have yet to manage to find a sustainable model/make a profit although being in the business for almost _twenty_ years? Oh please dear investors, give us ten more years then we surely be able to make a profit. Excuse me, I have to go buy a new mansion now. Talk to you later.

Don't you find it extremely worrying that one single entity can shut down a successful artist whole account?

Again, just a word of mouth, but word of mouth from friends. I have friends who I released things with back in the CD/vinyl days, and they report they earn fractions on streaming of what they used to earn. Fractions.

I've yet to give up on Spotify, but the more years pass by the more it starting to look like an enormous parasite feeding on new content.

[dayjob]

mostly still using bandcamp and bleep.com. sometime sdirectly from the artist's website. there's a couple used CD/vinyl places near me that also stock new things. i can go dig thru the cd/record bin for an hour on a saturday once a month and find a few things to listen to from the last 30 years or so. it's generally a fun excuse to get out of the house and only spend like $10-$20 but come home with things i'm excited about it.

Sorry, I have to call you out. You do realize that if you buy a used record and I listen to the same record on Spotify that I'm paying the artist more than you are, correct?

It's not supporting the artist to buy used records. This is great for the consumer, but the artist gets nothing.

it supports the record store who in turn buys new records. the 2 places i dip into once in a while both buy new records as well as sell used. one of them puts on local shows as well. keeping them in business is a good thing.

local record stores can be really important places.

That's still not supporting that artist. You aren't giving that artist even a fraction of a cent. I can make the same argument. Streaming on Spotify supports the labels that sign new artists. Keeping labels in business is a good thing. Streaming on Spotify supports the distributors that allow new artists to use the same international stage, i.e. Spotify that is used by many artists worldwide. Keeping distributors in business is a good thing.

You're being a hypocrite worried about saving money and criticizing others who actively participate in the industry that is active, relevant, and is actually paying artists money.

If you aren't actively making a donation to each artist whose used record you buy, then you are paying the artists that you listen to less than I am paying the artists that I listen to.

I'm not arguing against supporting record stores, although they're definitely dying and there aren't any around here that I bother with anymore. However, you aren't supporting the artist and you should acknowledge that.

who is being supported when i buy a used miles davis record? who is being supported when you stream a miles davis song from a streaming service?

are we going to go down this hellish rabbit hole and split hairs?

and i'd argue that record stores are more than dying.. they're dead. there's stores here and there that are worth supporting and visiting. the experience is different. perhaps that's just a novelty to some younger people. perhaps they like it. i have no idea or way of knowing. edit: should add that it's different in different countries. apparently CDs are still really big in japan.

used records/tapes/cds have been around as long as those formats have existed. it seems to work out ok. someone buys a used record, then buys the new one when it comes out. same way it goes w/used books.

i know streaming is relevant and here to stay unless somehow companies shit the bed. and it's not about 'saving money' as much as it's about maybe spending the price of that subscription and getting that new thing plus a couple old used things as well and then actually owning the music so it can be enjoyed anywhere regardless of what app is around and it's not tethered to a service. it's permanent as anything can be.

also, there's a lot of fine print in the streaming deals and record labels.. often it's the label that gets the money and the artist gets none. most record contracts had no details about streaming in them and there's plenty of stories from when this all got going about how the artist wasn't seeing a cent from their entire catalogue. that's perhaps changed for some but not all and certainly new record contracts are written to include these details.

and yeah i understand.. some people discover things on streaming services then go buy the album. i forget the numbers but it's not many subscribers doing that. i do wonder what people would do if music streaming services went dark for a while? it would be an interesting thing to witness how behavior would change.

home taping is killing music!

[dayjob]

Streaming on Spotify supports the labels that sign new artists. Keeping labels in business is a good thing. Streaming on Spotify supports the distributors that allow new artists to use the same international stage, i.e. Spotify that is used by many artists worldwide. Keeping distributors in business is a good thing.

Technically you are right. 1 dollar in revenue is better than nothing, but no matter how you turn it, Spotify leaves most producers with scraps.

Streaming and Spotify have been almost nothing but bad business for the artist. The only thing I see as a benefit is the way to discover new artists.

Don't you find it alarming that Spotify have yet to manage to find a sustainable model/make a profit although being in the business for almost _twenty_ years? Oh please dear investors, give us ten more years then we surely be able to make a profit. Excuse me, I have to go buy a new mansion now. Talk to you later.

Don't you find it extremely worrying that one single entity can shut down a successful artist whole account?

Again, just a word of mouth, but word of mouth from friends. I have friends who I released things with back in the CD/vinyl days, and they report they earn fractions on streaming of what they used to earn. Fractions.

I've yet to give up on Spotify, but the more years pass by the more it starting to look like an enormous parasite feeding on new content.

regarding profit.. they made profit when they went public. i'm sure all the investors got there $$ as did the founders. what's his name.. Ek is worth a few billion. he sells stock whenever they need another $100 million to fund another company in the defense/security industry. like the Ai targeting system spotify helped fund.

but that's typical. amazon and google are powering israel's Ai targeting system right now.

spotify is a tech company. that's their model. a start up model. like social media etc only the resource is music they don't own but license. the lower the licensing fees the more they can make, the higher their stock goes the more they can extract. it's how they make money. layoff people, stock goes up. etc

[ghettosynth]

Streaming on Spotify supports the labels that sign new artists. Keeping labels in business is a good thing. Streaming on Spotify supports the distributors that allow new artists to use the same international stage, i.e. Spotify that is used by many artists worldwide. Keeping distributors in business is a good thing.

Technically you are right.

Not technically, I am right. I am supporting artists more than those of you buying used physical media, full stop. I've streamed Eliana Radigue's Trilogie De La Morte over 300 times this past year. That's about 1/10th of one percent of its total streams for the most popular piece and more than twice that of the others. I'm doing more than my fair share of supporting the artists that interest me who put their work on the platform and ask for us to stream it to support them.

Every time you listen to your used physical media you contribute absolutely nothing to the artists bank account. Nothing, zip, nada, zilche, not a god damned thing. But don't let that stop you from telling a significant portion of the world that their $132/year spent on new music isn't wanted.

1 dollar in revenue is better than nothing, but no matter how you turn it, Spotify leaves most producers with scraps.

I've posted links in this thread that shows unknown artists can figure out how to make a living on Spotify. So, you're wrong. six grand a month is not scraps. I think that what so many "artists" don't want to acknowledge is that they were previously being overpaid for producing crap and are now angry that there is a market in which they have to actually compete.

So, if you're only making scraps, figure out why. Don't get mad because you can't get famous using the platform that you believe will make you famous but you lack the creativity, skill, talent, or all of the above to actually become famous.

If you want your own special deal with Spotify so that you earn more, then get famous so that you have some leverage. But stop whining about your lack of leverage while trying to make it the consumer's problem.

People used to pay a fixed cost for their music regardless of the number of listens. You'd buy a CD even if you'd only listen to it a few times. Now, in the artist's mind, this is fair because they think that the value is related to their effort. It's not. The value that the consumer receives relates to their use of the product. So, to me, it's very fair that artists get paid related to the number of streams. If it's less than what you were making before, then you were unfairly being overpaid for your work because it didn't have as much value to the consumer.

You can make whatever unsubstantiated claims to the contrary that you like. However, you cannot make up your own facts. The fact is, the consumer wants to stream music and is reasonably willing to pay for streaming.

[ghettosynth]

who is being supported when i buy a used miles davis record? who is being supported when you stream a miles davis song from a streaming service?

are we going to go down this hellish rabbit hole and split hairs?

I am supporting active artists who are producing right now. When you buy used CDs you are supporting nobody. There are no hairs to split. That is a fact. You started lecturing others about supporting artists but it seems that you're just cheap.

Talking about follow up sales is a red herring. You're just trying to justify your position.

used records/tapes/cds have been around as long as those formats have existed. it seems to work out ok. someone buys a used record, then buys the new one when it comes out. same way it goes w/used books.

Someone listens to a stream, and continues to listen to that artist. It's not about buying used records. It's about your assertion that those paying hard cash out of their pockets are not supporting the artist but, in the same thread, to say that you get your music via used music. Why aren't you tipping every artist that you listen to every single day so that they earn a proper living wage?

I've paid more for month for music since a few years ago when I started paying for streaming than I did in the five years prior. It's up to you to figure out how to get more streams, not me.

I still buy the occasional used CD/DVD/Vinyl. I still buy the occasional download from Bandcamp. Not much though and the total budget pales compared to to what I used to pay for DJ vinyl, but is about what I've always spent on new CDs. With streaming, there is a consistent $11 a month from my bank account. Every month, every time. That is my support for the music industry. If you want more money then you need to figure out how, in the modern climate, to attract my attention. Here comes the clue-bat, you won't get more money by whining like a child that "artists" aren't getting enough money. Come up with services that I want to pay for.

If you aren't capable of that, then that is squarely a you problem.

[glokraw]

Assuming one's music is worth hearing regularly by some grouping(s) of people, an aspiring artist or band has a ton of work to do, to gain and keep that audience, be it in a local music scene, on the internet, or by touring. To get past the gatekeepers, and be found by the algorithms, there must be frequent, reliable, and high quality content posted on all the largest social media platforms, that can catch and hold a new fan's attention, among a crowd with low and diminishing attention spans. What Maynard G Krebs would call, "WORK!!!"

Once you have someone's attention, if you have things to sell, be it downloads, physical media, typical attractive 'merch' etc, it still takes work and infrastructure to pull it all off, and not many people want to do the work, let alone invest day-job earnings attempting to reach a sustainable music-based income.

Not to mention that 'the music industry' is relying heavily on selling soft porn to ever younger hormone addicts, with ever shrinking attention spans, and little appreciation of music that is unrelated to shaking body parts.

[DrGonzo]

You can make whatever unsubstantiated claims to the contrary that you like. However, you cannot make up your own facts.

No need to go into a defensive position. I'm not attacking you because you think Spotify is great. You have a different experience than I do. Two things can be true at the same time.

The fact is, the consumer wants to stream music and is reasonably willing to pay for streaming.

But that is based on the assumption that the model is sustainable. Spotify is not sustainable. So far they have lost 4 billions. How much would you be willing to pay for a subscription that would be a worthwhile investment for Spotify/Investors? 50% more? 200% more? At the moment the model is artificially kept alive by investors.

The only streaming service that I know of that actually makes a sustainable revenue is Netflix.

[ghettosynth]

The fact is, the consumer wants to stream music and is reasonably willing to pay for streaming.

But that is based on the assumption that the model is sustainable. Spotify is not sustainable. So far they have lost 4 billions. How much would you be willing to pay for a subscription that would be a worthwhile investment for Spotify/Investors? 50% more? 200% more? At the moment the model is artificially kept alive by investors.

Oh I'm glad you shared, their investors probably want to know that. Why don't you ring them up and let them know. I imagine that they could really use some advice from a business expert such as yourself.

If they fail, Spotify would not be the first service that I've used for a number of years that failed. Oh well, time to move on. Competition will enter the market and I will choose from one of the competitors. What, do you think that if Spotify fails the big labels won't make a deal with Apple or Amazon?

I pay $11 a month to Spotify for the convenience. As a side benefit I discover new music that I like. As another positive side effect, some musicians get paid some amount of money. Cool, but you're not going to get that money if I stop giving it to Spotify because I'm not paying for your music, I'm paying for the service. If I don't have a convenient service, I'm back to sites like SomaFM, MixCloud, etc. or just listening to my own existing collection.