Spotify - anyone heard of it?

https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians

This is a calculator for how much each streaming service pays-per-play. I don't know if Youtube Music is any different from just "listening to music on Youtube" but Youtube is famously the stingiest

Thanks for this. It probably falls under Google Play Music, which is the service Google is discontinuing in favor of YTM

It was told to me once, but in conspiratorial tones-- that apparently the reason why labels won't stand up to Spotify's shitty model is that there is some extremely-profitable reason why they ought not to that involves "the fact that a vast majority of streamed music is the work of legacy acts that the labels themselves own". I don't remember the details, but I think the issue is that the major labels are making out just fine with this exploitive model, so there's no pressure to adjust to support artists themselves

― flamboyant goon tie included, Monday, August 3, 2020 10:56 AM (twenty-two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

major labels own a significant minority stake in spotify. sony sold about 50% of its share in spotify for $750m+ in 2018 (they claimed they would share the gains from the sale with artists and labels affiliated with sony, but idk if this actually happened).

https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/sony-has-sold-half-of-its-spotify-shares-1202794230/

@ Soundslike

There is no point in comparing "album sales" with "revenue from digital streaming". They are not comparable. They are different things.

Spotify is a streamlining of radio and album sales. Radio never paid shit-- it always got a pass because it was seen as "promotion for album sales". Spotify effectively replaces both the need for radio and album sales.

And that rules. Except: there needs to be a sustainable economic model in place (i.e. one that pays artists fairly) if it's going to work.

Streaming services fucking rule. I love TIDAL (it's the only one I use). I love playlists, I love having everything ever recorded at my fingertips. I loved selling all my CDs, I loved storing the gigabytes of music that I had in my iTunes folder on a hard drive and freeing up all that space. It is consumer friendly. It is also artist friendly-- provided it pays artists fairly, which it doesn't.

I also love my turntable and buying albums that I love enough to want a physical copy of.

*I'm just saying "Spotify" to denote all streaming services.

Anyone with the disposable income to do otherwise (i.e. actually buy music) who instead now only listens to music via Spotify et al, does not actually care about music, whatever they tell themselves.

okay?

@ Soundslike

There is no point in comparing "album sales" with "revenue from digital streaming". They are not comparable. They are different things.

Spotify is a streamlining of radio and album sales. Radio never paid shit-- it always got a pass because it was seen as "promotion for album sales". Spotify effectively replaces both the need for radio and album sales.

And that rules. Except: there needs to be a sustainable economic model in place (i.e. one that pays artists fairly) if it's going to work.

Streaming services fucking rule. I love TIDAL (it's the only one I use). I love playlists, I love having everything ever recorded at my fingertips. I loved selling all my CDs, I loved storing the gigabytes of music that I had in my iTunes folder on a hard drive and freeing up all that space. It is consumer friendly. It is also artist friendly-- provided it pays artists fairly, which it doesn't.

I also love my turntable and buying albums that I love enough to want a physical copy of.

*I'm just saying "Spotify" to denote all streaming services.

It's cool that you love all that, but given the reality of what Spotify et al *ARE* rather than what they would be if they paid artists fairly--which is to say, the opposite of what they actually are--then what you don't love or respect is music or artists.

Again, how is what *is* artist friendly? Saying "SUVs are great for bicyclists and pedestrians and the environment, if they just treated them fairly" isn't helpful--the thing is systemically designed from the ground up to hurt artists.

bonus benchmark streaming payments specific to artists above and beyond royalties at specific spin numbers seems entirely appropriate

the thing is systemically designed from the ground up to hurt artists.

@ Soundslike, your analogies are nonsensical. Artists want their music to be heard, they want for their music to be paid for. "Ownership" is stupid, it's a blip. You don't "own" an MP3 (any more than you can "own" data on a CD).

My view is this, which might be seen as pessimistic as a professional purveyor of recorded music: "recorded music = a saleable product" is a blip. It's only been the case for 100 years, and it is no longer the case. You cannot sell recorded music any more-- it is a dead resource.

I can bang on on here about how "Spotify needs to pay artists better" but it's just not gonna happen. TIDAL will collapse in five years. People will stop buying albums off Bandcamp once they realize that "digital ownership" is less preferable than a streaming subscription.

We are speeding toward a future where musicians just won't be making money off recorded music the way they once were... other solutions on this thread include Patreons and so forth. My long-standing argument is that the music industry (prior to the advent of recorded music) was always state and patron sponsored, and, in the classical music world, this is still the case. We just need for governments to start heavily subsidizing musicians to create their recorded work. In Canada it's working pretty well, most professional musicians get enough from the government to eke out a living, and this subsidization constitutes an infinitesimal amount of the overall budget-- why not double that budget?

I treat Spotify like it's Soulseek or something, an accessible form of piracy.

(I use both but spend a bunch of dough on records and, formerly, shows.)

If Ek et al. were to actually reform their pay structure that'd be pretty cool. I'm gonna keep screaming for it to happen. I don't think it will happen.

Funny to say "buying music just doesn't exist" and "streaming is the only reality" when Bandcamp has majorly increased the amount of money it pays out year on year. Particularly when I made clear--based not on "owning music" but on PAYING ARTISTS via mechanisms which aren't designed to do the opposite, which is the actual point--that "blip" sized Bandcamp pays artists via tens of thousands of sales the equivalent of BILLIONS of streams.

Meaning, the genie doesn't have to be put back in the bottle--just a relatively few people who care enough to not let music become meaningless "content" that only enriches the already rich can make a SERIOUS impact. TODAY, and tomorrow, by their personal choices. Saying "oh, the zeitgeist, it is what it is, I can't but do what it says I must" is a total fucking cop-out.

You may be interested in this thread: Stop Thinking of Yourself as a Good Person: The Ethics and Economics of Music Streaming

soundslike, it feels like you're preaching to the choir here, idk if there are any regular ilm posters who don't buy lots of music from bandcamp or elsewhere.

spotify's pay structure indeed sucks, but it seems like more of your ire should be directed towards the traditional music industry, which is experiencing record revenues even as artist pay decreases.

also feels a little unnecessarily ad hominem to accuse fgti of not loving or respecting music or artists when he's in fact a professional musician who has a very real stake in all of this.

Not ad hominem, just blunt. Sorry, frustrations with the state of the world are obviously far larger than music; but music is one area where we can still have some direct, meaningful impact on an individual level via what we choose to support (or not support). It sounds to me like FGTI has very much convinced himself everything is great about streaming except, you know, the whole fundamental reason it exists, which is to enrich a few tech types and a few token rich artists at the expense of everyone else--a feature, not a bug. So if I bluntly state that that's a cop-out, it's not ad hominem--I'm not saying it's due to a flaw in his character or something out of his control; I'm saying the justifications ring hollow, and haven't yet heard a reason otherwise besides somehow it's just too late to do anything else but stream.

And maybe I'm being harsh because my frustrations aren't with "normal people" here--he's right, that for people with a fully casual relationship to music, who in prior generations would've just listened to radio or MTV and bought the occasional cassette or CD, streaming is just obvious.

Rather, my frustrations are with people--the number of whom I encounter shocks me, not per se on ILM--who profess to love music, or maybe even are (were) artists themselves, who are often very intelligent and passionate, who nevertheless have decided there's nothing they can do and might as well give up on paying artists myself and hope for some change of heart at Spotify headquarters or some other deus ex machina.

To put it more briefly, a lot of "the choir" is still singing, but lost its religion and quit tithing a long time ago.

I hope, and assume, that all this applies to very few ILMers. But I've seen enough elsewhere to suggest it might apply to more than I'd want to believe.

if you assume it applies to very few ILMers, why are you basically doing a TEDtalk on it here.

if you assume it applies to very few ILMers, why are you basically doing a TEDtalk on it here.

A mega-long thread on a music-loving site about Spotity/streaming, in light of particularly galling "let them eat tech" tech-bro nonsense seemed like a reasonable place to weigh in?

I guess I might also have been looking for other thoughts that might put me at ease a little somehow, by providing some information I wasn't aware of wherein it's actually not as bad for artists as I've feared. Still hoping for that. But so far I've mainly gotten the most full-throated "streaming is the best [just ignore what artists get paid/it is what it is we might as well give up]" position I've encountered.

The “blip” I’m talking about is a hundred-year blip— recorded music itself is culturally valuable, but increasingly becoming monetarily valueless.

Bandcamp sales are a portion of my own income. But, as is always the case with any “new thing”, I have to consider what the future will hold from the perspective of the consumer, not what I believe I am entitled to as an artist.

When Napster came out, many musicians were horrified. I was not— I was delighted, and totally fine with the idea of my work being pirated. When MP3s replaced CDs, I was on board. Spotify* is very consumer-friendly, and trying to say “stop” to something that I personally (as a consumer) prefer, is denying the fact that this is just another step forward toward the inevitable— the complete monetary devaluation of recorded music.

I’m saying: “let’s get Spotify to pay musicians fairly” or “use TIDAL, it’s better in this regard”, or “support me on my Bandcamp” but my common sense is also thinking “this just won’t work, we’re screwed”.

I predict that Bandcamp will stay popular but will wane as a reliable source of income for musicians. I predict TIDAL will go down in five years unless there is a cultural shift to pivot platforms (by artists and labels) but I don’t think that will happen. I predict Spotify will never change their pay structure unless there’s some government intervention but that won’t happen— already it’s Spotify pressuring Sweden for changes in their favour, not the other way around.

I am pragmatic both as a creator and a consumer, I encourage people to use TIDAL for streaming, Bandcamp for buying. I think about the future and I see an untenable economy for recording artists unless governments start (or continue to) subsidizing.

Of all the possible solutions to this problem, asking a government to set aside less than .1% of the annual budget to pay for musicians to make records is, I think, a very attainable one. Shaming consumers into making more ethical decisions? you’re telling us to buy Priuses. It won’t make a significant difference economically and the initiative to do so will fade over time.

When I say “streaming rules” I am speaking from the position of a consumer, as well as a creator who prioritizes distribution and access to my recorded work over profitability.

xp And also/especially when artists themselves are constantly posting li.sten.to links, encouraging fans to find their music on various streaming services (I made this same point in the other thread) (I do buy albums, btw/ftr)

Soundslike 100% otm itt

Priuses is otm

I guess it seems like "we're doomed" applies to... most anything in the world, and yeah, technically that could mean nothing matters and it never has, and all individual/collective agency is illusion. But I can't personally live like that; and in any case, in this one sphere, data suggests there actually is a way to individually/collectively do something tangible about it, without hoping tech-bros grow a conscience/a government that exists to protect corporations flips its approach entirely (both even more certain to not happen than general doom is).

A small minority always bought the bulk of non-Top 40 records, and yet some musicians were able to actually make a living, or at least not have to treat it as a mere hobby, for 100+ years (more than I'm willing to dismiss as a "blip".) As participants (or former participants) in that minority that kept things going, I don't see any compelling reason to say "Pandora's (or Spotify's) Box has been opened, I have no choice now". We could've all been people who were happy with 99% radio and the occasional Eagles greatest hits record, as most people were, for most of the history of recorded music. We didn't then, and we had a real effect; why must we, now?

From an email I got today, from one of my favorite artists:

So excited to announce #TodaysHits Presents... Victoria Monét with @AppleMusic.

I'm reaching out to my most loyal fans to join me to celebrate Thursday night by playing my new project #JAGUAR for a select group of you before I share it with the world.

At my label’s request I commissioned visual accompaniment to every track on my recently released record for Spotify-specific usage. Concessions were made with the specific intention of creating longevity for the release, so that tracks would continue to be placed on playlists for a longer period of time. The industry is already centred-toward-pleasing-Spotify— I just don’t know what to tell you. I would hope that streaming services like Spotify begin to take a more benevolent, symbiotic approach to their relationship with their content creators (as Netflix has done with theirs)— lets hope that Sweden brings back the guillotine or does something to adjust Spotify’s current approach, I guess.

Again: I’m interested in that once-overheard explanation for why labels are to blame, here— I heard it once but I can’t remember, something to do with “the recorded works of inactive musicians” being a huge goldmine here

Priuses is otm

I'm a person who has been vegan for 23 years, and hasn't driven/owned a car in 15, so I know something about feeling Sisyphean with regards to systemic change vs. individual action. (Though, I actually have seen a lot of change on those fronts on scales far wider than I could've imagined, and not because everybody suddenly became an ethics freak.)

But music doesn't really seem comparable to those sorts of things related to environmental/societal collapse. In that, you buying an album--or lots of albums--isn't negated by other people choosing to only stream (unlike your Prius vs. 10,000 SUVs). Both can coexist, and in slightly other forms (i.e. radio, Mtv) have for the duration of recorded music history. The possibility of personal efficacy--and helping others realize they can make a difference--is much more immediately viable, and doesn't require a lifetime of counting steps forward vs. others' steps backwards.

Well if it's true that the vast majority of Spotify users just play songs they already know, rather than searching for or listening to new music - and I think that is true - then it stands to reason that a very sizeable bulk of listening is going to be i.e. Julio Iglesias, The Temptations, Nirvana etc. Presumably the songwriting royalties go to the artists' estates though in any case?

xpost

I think it's more like, the Prius has been around a while. People who care and have the means, they have one or suchlike. There aren't enough of them to turn the whole system around.

if you think artists don't get properly compensated by spotify, songwriters get pennies on even that dollar

I didn’t try and persuade people that it was more ethical to buy CDs than to buy MP3s, so beyond telling people “tidal, Bandcamp” (as I do), what more can I tell people? My analogy with Priuses about consumer guilt was one thing but comparing streaming to SUVs is not otm imo— as previously stated my desire as an artist is wider accessibility and availability of my recorded work (not profitability).

One more point: Billboard just changed their chart-qualifying rules to discourage the practice of bundling merch with album/single purchases (including CD + digital copy), but this is a way that artists have actually been encouraging fans to buy copies of their music (and fans have been doing it).

The Prius owner and the Bandcamp customer are not a direct analogue to the 90/00s indie CD buyer. The more casual part of purchasing market has been gutted. Not every Teflon Tel Aviv fan was a diehard.

Of all the possible solutions to this problem, asking a government to set aside less than .1% of the annual budget to pay for musicians to make records is, I think, a very attainable one.

this seems eminently reasonable, which is why i highly highly highly doubt this will ever happen in the u.s.

I was saying streaming *isn't* like SUVs, in that its prevalence doesn't negate the efficacy--actual dollars in artists pockets--that buying music has.

And CDs/LPs vs digital downloads doesn't really enter into it--if anything, it's likely digital purchases put more money in artists' pockets (certainly in the case of a label-less total independent artist). So I'm not sure what "I didn't try and persuade people that it was more ethical to buy CDs than to buy MP3s" means...

Radio never paid shit-- it always got a pass because it was seen as "promotion for album sales".

AIUI radio play in the UK used to pay better than record sales fwiw

This thread has been difficult as a casual Owen Pallet fan. Also apologies to Telefon Tel Aviv who I have misspelled a couple of times now, and are still a going concern.

I am a Canadian taxpayer at least!

Owen Pallett*
Good day.

AIUI radio play in the UK used to pay better than record sales fwiw

― Steppin' RZA (sic), Monday, August 3, 2020 1:29 PM (six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

u.s. pays songwriters for radio play (through PROs like ASCAP and BMI), but has never paid recording artists or labels for radio play. the other countries that don't pay: north korea, iran, and china (source)

Apple Music and Tidal are basically the same as Spotify Premium, payment-wise, region-by-region. The ad-supported Spotify "free" tier pays less per stream, but a) still pays, b) still pays an order of magnitude more than YouTube, and c) is over time a very effective recruiting method for Premium subscribers. There's no moral difference between the individual paid streaming services at the payment level.

In addition, streaming as a whole is the overwhelming majority of recorded-music revenue at this point, and has returned the music industry to growth after years of decline. Spotify paid about $1.5 billion in royalties in Q2 2020, according to latest financial report. So I don't feel bad about supporting it as a thing. In a human cultural sense, I think people being able to listen to all the world's music is way better than gating what you can hear by what you can pay. Bandcamp is cool, but it's a glittering reprise of the old model. As a music fan, I don't want that.

In terms of payment "fairness", Spotify pays ~70% of its revenue in royalties, where iTunes downloads paid ~65% and CD stores paid ~45%. So it's not obviously "unfair" on these grounds, either. (And no, that money doesn't unfairly go to popular artists instead of "your" artists.)

I think we're still barely at the beginning of figuring out all the structural and cultural implications of streaming, and what its future can and should be, so I'm in no way saying the current state is ideal. But it doesn't have the seemingly-obvious flaws most commonly and self-righteously attributed to it.

This thread has been difficult as a casual Owen Pallet fan.

Never listened to their music, myself, but I think they're doing OK.

good good

@ glenn

Apple Music and Tidal are basically the same as Spotify Premium, payment-wise, region-by-region.

I don't understand this. Tidal literally pays 3x more per stream than Spotify.

In terms of payment "fairness", Spotify pays ~70% of its revenue in royalties, where iTunes downloads paid ~65% and CD stores paid ~45%.

Comparing % of revenue of a streaming service to previously existing "album sales" models is disingenuous. It's a different service. (And, if we're playing that game, Bandcamp pays 85%.) I don't know the specifics of how revenue is disseminated, either-- where is that $1.5 bn actually going?

Stream-rate comparisons between "Tidal" and "Spotify" as wholes are misleading, because Spotify's "average" includes people on free accounts, and in several large countries where subscriptions are cheaper. This is a decent introduction to some of the main complexities:

https://soundcharts.com/blog/music-streaming-rates-payouts

but there's another level below that. Maybe multiple.

If streaming revenue isn't fair for artists, why do they agree to sign contracts that include streaming? It seems to me if you're an artist, you can decide whether you choose to include streaming in the contract you sign. What am I missing here?

@ Glenn

They're not misleading at all: "In fact, all 6 top platforms in terms of per-stream payouts don’t have a free, ad-supported version." The entire article is basically trying-to-make-complicated-something-that-is-very-simple. Spotify's free-with-ads model doesn't pay artists enough-- so why not cancel it?

@ brotherlovesdub

There are artists who hold out. Joanna Newsom was the last unicorn afaik.

Because with every release it's the devil's bargain - do you want far fewer people to hear your record? Do you want to gamble that people will pay for physicals/downloads just to hear your record, even though everyone's used to the convenience of streaming now?

I've seen it work for some artists, mostly jazz and classical, who resolutely keep their music off streaming and have a fanbase (presumably including a lot of older listeners and musicians) who will go there. I think it's an admirable decision but not easy...most artists people to actually be able to hear the record they worked so hard on.

xp