Spotify Is Eating the Entire Music Business?

[kelvyn]

The arguments for and against Spotify/Apple Music etc are moot.
Until the pendulum swings to a trend where people go back to purchasing music in a tactile form - CD, Vinyl, whatever, composers and musicians are going to suffer financially. We should focus more on live concerts and mechanicals through radio plays - songwriting - than just on Spotify etc.
we have to face it that the internet - as great as some of it is - has screwed a lot of creatives out of any form of financial security. Spotify is just the tip of the iceberg.
That’s the world we live in…

[neverbefore]

I was on Spotify long ago and when I received my first revenue statement it was 0.02c
I thought - well, I've had my 2 cents worth and I left Spotify then and there
I got more pleasure from having that joke than I ever would have got from Spotify even with a million plays.

[masterhiggins]

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.

Many are the same people that keep predicting TSLA stock is going to crash to $0.

[dayjob]

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.

jesus christ dude.. since you can't bother to read my posts.. i'll make a list for you.

1 - i buy 90% of my music from bandcamp and bleep.
2 - once in a while i go down the road to one of two local record stores and buy something used and/or something new. i sleep fine at night.
3 - if you're going to call me names like "cheap" then i'm going to tell you that you're a self serving douche bag.
4- the $11 a month you spend goes to spotify and how it gets split up between streams is probably impossible to track. but you can bet there's a portion of it that goes to joe rogan, taylor swift and beyonces of the world and not the artists who make the obscure music you discover on spotify... unlike bandcamp where the money goes directly to the artist as you know.

5 - it's good you still buy the once in awhile cd/vinyl/download since that actually goes to the artists in a meaningful way.

6 - i'm done discussing this with you. good day.

[ghettosynth]

jesus christ dude.. since you can't bother to read my posts.. i'll make a list for you.

1 - i buy 90% of my music from bandcamp and bleep.

And you also buy used CDs to save money, putting your needs over the needs of the artist. I don't care, but you had the nerve to put yourself up on a high horse.

... point out some artists that Spotify recommends

and they get exactly nothing from all the streaming services combined. like i said, it's good for the consumer, bad for the artists. i'm glad you found some niche things.. but niche things are fodder for streaming services. they don't get paid.

Incorrect, as has been shown. However, what artists get is not my concern, and, apparently, not yours either because you are quite willing to ignore their needs when it suits your need to consume.

2 - once in a while i go down the road to one of two local record stores and buy something used and/or something new. i sleep fine at night.

Jack's a fine bloke...
Once in a while Jack drinks and drives
Once in a while Jack goes faster than the speed limit
Once in a while Jack engages in behavior that he's criticized others for doing.

4- the $11 a month you spend goes to spotify and how it gets split up between streams is probably impossible to track. but you can bet there's a portion of it that goes to joe rogan, taylor swift and beyonces of the world and not the artists who make the obscure music you discover on bandcamp.

It's not the consumer's problem how that money is split up. I'm trying to help you understand how pointless some of your contributions to this thread are. Think of me as representative of the typical consumer. Consumers aren't going to ditch Spotify because shit punk bands aren't getting enough money to make rent.

5 - it's good you still buy the once in awhile cd/vinyl/download since that actually goes to the artists in a meaningful way.

So does my monthly subscription. If, as an artist, you aren't getting meaningful money then maybe what you're contributing to the world isn't meaningful? After all, we are just talking about money here. So you can't get all bent out of shape that having a commercial leaning isn't the only thing that matters. It's not, unless, of course, you expect other people to give you money for it. Then, it's exactly what matters. You aren't entitled to make a living by producing shit that nobody wants to consume. You can, of course, use your own time and resources to produce whatever you want. And if what you produce is interesting enough but not commercial, then perhaps you can convince some benefactors to fund your lifestyle. However, at no time is it the consumer's responsibility to ensure that you have enough to eat.

The degree of entitlement that comes out of the mouths of artists and pseudo-artists blows me away.

[neverbefore]

jesus christ dude.. since you can't bother to read my posts.. i'll make a list for you.

1 - i buy 90% of my music from bandcamp and bleep.

And you also buy used CDs to save money, putting your needs over the needs of the artist. I don't care, but you had the nerve to put yourself up on a high horse.

... point out some artists that Spotify recommends

and they get exactly nothing from all the streaming services combined. like i said, it's good for the consumer, bad for the artists. i'm glad you found some niche things.. but niche things are fodder for streaming services. they don't get paid.

Incorrect, as has been shown. However, what artists get is not my concern, and, apparently, not yours either because you are quite willing to ignore their needs when it suits your need to consume.

2 - once in a while i go down the road to one of two local record stores and buy something used and/or something new. i sleep fine at night.

Jack's a fine bloke...
Once in a while Jack drinks and drives
Once in a while Jack goes faster than the speed limit
Once in a while Jack engages in behavior that he's criticized others for doing.

4- the $11 a month you spend goes to spotify and how it gets split up between streams is probably impossible to track. but you can bet there's a portion of it that goes to joe rogan, taylor swift and beyonces of the world and not the artists who make the obscure music you discover on bandcamp.

It's not the consumer's problem how that money is split up. I'm trying to help you understand how pointless your contributions to this thread are. Think of me as representative of the typical consumer. Consumers aren't going to ditch Spotify because shit punk bands aren't getting enough money to make rent.

5 - it's good you still buy the once in awhile cd/vinyl/download since that actually goes to the artists in a meaningful way.

So does my monthly subscription. If, as an artist, you aren't getting meaningful money then maybe what you're contributing to the world isn't meaningful? After all, we are just talking about money here. So you can't get all bent out of shape that having a commercial leaning isn't the only thing that matters. It's not, unless, of course, you expect other people to give you money for it. Then, it's exactly what matters. You aren't entitled to make a living by producing shit that nobody wants to consume. You can, of course, use your own time and resources to produce whatever you want. And if what you produce is interesting enough but not commercial, then perhaps you can convince some benefactors to fund your lifestyle. However, at no time is it the consumer's responsibility to ensure that you have enough to eat.

The degree of entitlement that comes out of the mouths of artists and pseudo-artists blows me away.

how do consumers form their musical tastes?/preferences

[ghettosynth]

how do consumers form their musical tastes?/preferences

However they want to, do you have a point?

[neverbefore]

how do consumers form their musical tastes?/preferences

However they want to, do you have a point?

of course I have a point - consumers (note how you place people / music lovers within a neo-liberal market ideology, next you will be wrting about content creators) are heavily influenced in their preferences by marketing. Spotify pays most to heavily marketed artists ie Spotify functions as a funnel for money from the 'consumer' (suitably manipulated by marketing) to the products of the major music industry coprorations.
Your position seems to be that the market is natural, that if people want to make money from music then they have to produce what the people want, as if what the people want is somehow free from manipulation via marketing, whereas what the people want (in terms of mass consumption) is almost entirely determined by marketing.
Spotify, more or less, pays out according to the most highly marketed artists. Spotify functions as a gatekeeper on artist incomes given that discretionary spending on music is limited and Spotify (and the other streaming services) are taking pretty much all of the discretionary spending.
Market concentration.

[ghettosynth]

how do consumers form their musical tastes?/preferences

However they want to, do you have a point?

of course I have a point - consumers (note how you place people / music lovers within a neo-liberal market ideology, next you will be wrting about content creators) are heavily influenced in their preferences by marketing.

So f**king what? When has this ever not been the case? Again, what's your point? That marketing exists? Oh noes, somebody better do something...for the sake of the children!

So now you don't have agency in what you select because Spotify? And yet you had that agency before? Are you trying to argue that there was no marketing before Spotify? What exactly do you think the giant cardboard cutout of Kiss that was staring you in the face as you walked into the record store in the late 70s was all about?

The real truth here is that artists that produce stuff that people don't want to listen to are mad that people don't want to listen to their stuff and think that it's just about exposure.

[neverbefore]

how do consumers form their musical tastes?/preferences

However they want to, do you have a point?

of course I have a point - consumers (note how you place people / music lovers within a neo-liberal market ideology, next you will be wrting about content creators) are heavily influenced in their preferences by marketing.

So f**king what? When has this ever not been the case? Again, what's your point? That marketing exists? Oh noes, somebody better do something...for the sake of the children!

So now you don't have agency in what you select because Spotify? And yet you had that agency before? Are you trying to argue that there was no marketing before Spotify? What exactly do you think the giant cardboard cutout of Kiss that was staring you in the face as you walked into the record store in the late 70s was all about?

The real truth here is that artists that produce stuff that people don't want to listen to are mad that people don't want to listen to their stuff and think that it's just about exposure.

I made no claim about history so your anger is misplaced, however there has been a massive concentration in ownership in music (and generally) over the last few decades so your claims to marketing effectively being 'the same back then' are not supported

[ghettosynth]

I made no claim about history so your anger is misplaced

Is that all you have here? I get it though. First you attempt to frame my position as some sort of undesirable political view, which I don't bite on, now it must be my emotional state. Does this work in your circles?

Everyone has agency. You seem to be upset that consumers are impacted by marketing, as they always have been, and because of that some artists don't get their "fair" share of the spotlight, as it's always been.

I argue that you're getting far more of your fair share with modern platforms. You have the ability to take your music to the world with almost no investment. Of course this means that you're getting less attention than before, because everyone has that ability now, so there is far more material to choose from. Again, as I stated earlier in this thread, don't be naïve, learn what preferential attachment is all about.

There is nothing stopping you from writing your own recommendation engine. Spotify has an API, you can build your own recommender based on whatever attributes of what you listen to that you think matter and then completely side-step their efforts to market mumble-rap at you. Then you could sell your recommender/player on any number of app platforms. What a world we live in eh? So much freedom to exercise your creative and technical abilities.

It seems that what you're mad about is that you think that other people must be impacted by marketing and are not able to make reasonable choices for themselves. As much as I think the mainstream listens to a bunch of crap, I respect their right to choose to do that for themselves. Again, it's on the artist to overcome that, you don't even have to use Spotify. You can reach your audience however you please, but make no mistake about it, how or if that happens, is nobody else's problem.

[glokraw]

The real truth here is that artists that produce stuff that people don't want to listen to are mad that people don't want to listen to their stuff and think that it's just about exposure.

Very true, and most artists are too lazy to create their own exposure, or are
uneducated in what is required to accomplish that. If you meet someone you like out in the wilds, jot them a note with your BandCamp info, and describe your music.

I do that often, and have yet to meet anyone who has even heard of BandCamp. These are are working people mostly between 20 and 40 years of age, so I mention
the songs are also on youtube, spotify, and Apple etc, and that clicks with them.
Gotta start both somewhere, and everywhere! I give CD's to a few store-checkers, and attach mp3's to a few people that medically kept me alive, and also a few forum members out yonder.
Cheers

[osiris]

Spotify: /Perhaps not surprising, Drake is the current king of Spotify with a take of $52.5 million in earnings generated from his 21.5 billion streams. His haul is unmatched, even by J Balvin (huh?), who took the #2 spot on the outlet's "Spotify Rich List" by netting $37.9M.
The first sighting of dance music producers comes at #16 with The Chainsmokers, who've generated an impressive 7.2 billion streams and $17.7 million. Calvin Harris has taken home a cool $14 million so far, landing him at #25.
These numbers are impressive, but due to Spotify's royalties structure, earnings of this magnitude are few and far between. ////According to Rolling Stone, the average artist in the bottom 98.6% of earners took home just $12 per month. ///

[glokraw]

how do consumers form their musical tastes?/preferences

However they want to, do you have a point?

I don't have much time to listen to music, and my tastes took shape between
1966 and 1972, so if something 'new' to me is playing, if it can squeeze into my perceived constraints of what was happening in that short developemental 'era', I might keep listening, but only if there is something compelling presented in the music. I wouldn't recognize anything from those just mentioned in the above post, time is too short to wander aimlessly about in the various 'top' lists
Cheers

[dayjob]

jesus christ dude.. since you can't bother to read my posts.. i'll make a list for you.

1 - i buy 90% of my music from bandcamp and bleep.

And you also buy used CDs to save money, putting your needs over the needs of the artist. I don't care, but you had the nerve to put yourself up on a high horse.

... point out some artists that Spotify recommends

and they get exactly nothing from all the streaming services combined. like i said, it's good for the consumer, bad for the artists. i'm glad you found some niche things.. but niche things are fodder for streaming services. they don't get paid.

Incorrect, as has been shown. However, what artists get is not my concern, and, apparently, not yours either because you are quite willing to ignore their needs when it suits your need to consume.

2 - once in a while i go down the road to one of two local record stores and buy something used and/or something new. i sleep fine at night.

Jack's a fine bloke...
Once in a while Jack drinks and drives
Once in a while Jack goes faster than the speed limit
Once in a while Jack engages in behavior that he's criticized others for doing.

4- the $11 a month you spend goes to spotify and how it gets split up between streams is probably impossible to track. but you can bet there's a portion of it that goes to joe rogan, taylor swift and beyonces of the world and not the artists who make the obscure music you discover on bandcamp.

It's not the consumer's problem how that money is split up. I'm trying to help you understand how pointless some of your contributions to this thread are. Think of me as representative of the typical consumer. Consumers aren't going to ditch Spotify because shit punk bands aren't getting enough money to make rent.

5 - it's good you still buy the once in awhile cd/vinyl/download since that actually goes to the artists in a meaningful way.

So does my monthly subscription. If, as an artist, you aren't getting meaningful money then maybe what you're contributing to the world isn't meaningful? After all, we are just talking about money here. So you can't get all bent out of shape that having a commercial leaning isn't the only thing that matters. It's not, unless, of course, you expect other people to give you money for it. Then, it's exactly what matters. You aren't entitled to make a living by producing shit that nobody wants to consume. You can, of course, use your own time and resources to produce whatever you want. And if what you produce is interesting enough but not commercial, then perhaps you can convince some benefactors to fund your lifestyle. However, at no time is it the consumer's responsibility to ensure that you have enough to eat.

The degree of entitlement that comes out of the mouths of artists and pseudo-artists blows me away.

oh ffs one more time then for real i'm out.

you're being pedantic and disingenuous if not arguing in bad faith.

i've not said anything (i think) in this thread about my creations and renumeration from streaming services and i've only spoken as a consumer which is what you say you're doing. so you can make all the comments you want about my "contributions not being worth attention". i don't care. that's not what this is about. i'm not whining for money from spotify i'm saying that spotify sucks and is not a good turn of events for music as a whole.

as a consumer i think it matters where i spend my money when there's a choice. sometimes there is no choice. perhaps that's how you see it right now. you have no choice but to subscribe to spotify. i think there is a choice. you do not. that's kind of the end of it.

i'm not shaming consumers but shaming spotify for not leveling up the royalty rate for everyone and making a policy that is fair to those obscure artists you seem to love so much. they have changed their royalty rate more than once. rate goes down.. stock goes up. stock holders happy.

regarding used cds/vinyl.. i think the 30 yer old CD i buy or the 40 year old record.. is not taking money away from the artist.. if they're even still alive they've made whatever they were going to make on that.. and as said.. i couldn't care less if i buy a used copy of sgt peppers as the beatles and their descendants are all very well cared for and another $3 in royalty isn't going to matter one way or the other.. that's what i'm talking about when i say buying used is fine.. i mean.. wtf.. half the time the label and the artist have long moved on and either don't exist or they made it big and it doesn't matter.

buying used is as much about supporting a local store (a store that also sells new music) as it is about discovering something new that's old that i missed when it was out etc etc.. or whatever reason. or some small tiny label that pressed up 300 copies of a record 15 years ago then disappeared.

taylor swift allegedly got $100 million in royalties last year. probably because years ago she took all her music off spotify and then waited to bring them to the negotiating table to get a better royalty. good for her. she's a savvy business person.

i think it's helpful to be aware. to be informed about how all this shit works as maybe it will effect someone's decision about participating in it. some people are thoughtful in these kinds of things, some aren't, some accept things as they are and are indifferent "not my problem" mode of thinking. so it goes. good luck with all the things.

this time.. really.. good day. i'm out.