Spotify - anyone heard of it?

I was gonna say that the cost of the plans really should be higher. $10/month for unlimited on-demand streaming seems… unbalanced compared to how recorded music has traditionally been priced.

(I know there’s traditionally a tipping point at which people would resort to piracy, but maybe not so much now? Downloading MP3s and loading them into a phone is a PITA in todays world)

well, presumably since spotify's income follows that of the labels/artists they would raise the subscription price if they thought it was viable? I'm sure people with excel sheets have looked into this

And no disrespect to intuitions, but my “assertions” about the user-centric model are based on running the numbers for it on actual Spotify data. Not sample data, full actual data, every month for years. You don’t have to trust me, but either I’m lying or it’s the most authoritative information possible.

what's your take on the user-centric model Glenn? would it not really make a difference?

In short: a single stream is worth $0.00003 (or whatever the hilarious number is) not because musicians have signed contracts, but because “the big three”— who not-coincidentally are also major shareholders in Spotify— have agreed to dilute the worth of recorded music to this point.

Help me understand this. (Asking in good faith, not facetiously.) Because this is the part that always irritates me in the vilification of Spotify. You’re saying the Big Three negotiated the deals and are shareholders in Spotify… yet all the outrage is directed at Spotify and not the Big Three. And also how can you point at the Big Three negotiating the deals and they say the problem is not that musicians signed contracts with their labels, who did a poor job of representing them in this negotiation? The only scenario I see that isn’t about “musicians signed the contracts” is all the artists who aren’t on majors, because the majors’ scale and influence is so vast that they set precedent for everyone.

Not to be a Gen X Punk about it but the history of musicians getting fucked over the years are due to the corporate labels (your Big Three).

I was gonna say that the cost of the plans really should be higher. $10/month for unlimited on-demand streaming seems… unbalanced compared to how recorded music has traditionally been priced.

But the 12-CD a year person is getting a ton more value for roughly the same yearly outlay (even if they’re not taking advantage of it).

presumably since spotify's income follows that of the labels/artists they would raise the subscription price if they thought it was viable?

“Viable” in what sense, though? Maximizing their profits, sure; but maybe at the expense of a still-“viable” but less profitable business that would pay out more to artists?

they would raise the subscription price if they thought it was viable

what if they hadn't launched with a price calculated to make people eschew other methods of music consumption

I’m lying or it’s the most authoritative information possible.

Didn’t mean to imply that you were lying— I acknowledge that my wording did just that, and for that I apologize— just that I recall that an examination of the financial reports yielded some obvious opportunities for artist-friendly restructuring.

The point I tried to make, and felt I did make, and make again: the amount per-play that is offered by Spotify was negotiated by the business itself and holding companies who had no loyalty toward/no interest in fostering a profitable model for working musicians, and as a result, the value of “listening to a song” has deprecated to a point that working musicians can no longer look to recording music (for the purpose of DSP distribution) as a meaningful form of income— and that DSPs have replaced most other income sources for recorded music (beyond commercial endeavors like film scoring).

Comparing rates to iMusic’s rates is irrelevant— iMusic did not significantly deprecate the value of recorded music, as DSPs have done.

Steaming models could be created, simply, easily, effortlessly, that would allow for working musicians to look to “making albums” etc. as a viable career; this will not happen as long as the DSP models are designed by people who don’t have a vested interest in it.

As far as I’m concerned, Spotify has not restructured the recorded music industry, it has restructured the piracy industry; it has found ways of profiting off of existing catalogues by devaluing their use while foisting the same devaluation on working musicians. It is theft and it should be outlawed. Yes, musicians sign contracts agreeing to this devaluations; there is no other option (beyond giving up entirely and finding other income streams).

yet all the outrage is directed at Spotify and not the Big Three

... is there a lack of outrage directed at major labels?

The only scenario I see that isn’t about “musicians signed the contracts” is all the artists who aren’t on majors, because the majors’ scale and influence is so vast that they set precedent for everyone.

Spotify cutting sweetheart deals with the majors to protect itself from the outset, screwing non-major label artists even more than major label artists is the crux of the issue, no?

no one who works for these companies should have their defenses of these companies taken seriously.

Oh come now I’m enjoying this, table! I mentioned my work today for Air BnB so as to generate camaraderie wrt “getting paid by shitheads”

Generally I think this is a problem unsolvable by capitalism, once something has been devalued there's no reset button. The era of a relatively large number of people making a living from selling recorded music should probably be treated as a historic anomaly at this point as streaming is never going to be profitable enough to raise rates significantly and only a small portion of people will pay for owning digital music via Bandcamp/successors even if streaming dies.

The only way out are things like robust public funding for the arts and a social system that gives those people room to make art without it being a profitable endeavor, etc..

the Patreon / 1000 True Fans model is probably the future for most acts who want to make a living at it.

https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators/music

I guess there aren't a lot of bands doing the Patreon model (the only one I know of is Haley Dahl/Sloppy Jane) but sad lol that almost all of these are reviewers or Youtubers. And Pomplamoose.

We've moved from a world where people were in control of their files (whether that be music, photos or films) to one where music is streamed, photos are stored in the cloud and films are distributed across a number of streaming services, and liable to disappear at any time, and a lot of this is due to pressure from media companies to seize back control after their panic over Napster and bittorrent. Of course they don't even bother cracking down on file sharing these days, we have a generation who don't even know there's any alternative to streaming and cloud storage, so safe to say they've won the battle. For artists it has been a disaster, yes - but from an archivist POV it seems catastrophic.

^^^

yeah

milo z otm. Recorded music being in its “vaudeville stage” doesn’t mean the creation of new work is going to disappear, but it will— like chamber music, like theatre, like dance— require funding models (private or public) in order to be a viable career choice

... is there a lack of outrage directed at major labels?

Relative to the amount of vitriol directed at Spotify? Yes I think there is a lack of outrage directed at major labels.

i am not arguing any moral high ground, but after watching tons of excellent queer films get removed from Netflix over the course of a year or so around 2011-2012, i stopped using Spotify (and netflix, for a few years) and started either buying or pirating all the music that i have.

i won’t have my tastes or desires subject to the whims of a corporation any more than they already are. i don’t mind putting music from my laptop onto my phone— it’s the way i have always done it! takes only a few minutes!

i keep getting offers to try Apple Music for free and the answer is always, always NO.

Imagine if music streaming worked like movie/TV streaming, and albums were licensed exclusively, and would randomly come and go from a different services… or maybe you could only hear Universal releases on Universal’s app (etc.); and listeners would have to subscribe to several different services to hear what they wanted. That would be wild! I’m not really sure what my point is, except I wonder if it would cause listeners to value the music more, by making it seem less commodified. I guess it wouldn’t benefit the artists any, if the prices were the same.

(although maybe they’d get a bigger cut if the music was being distributed directly by the label… or so you would hope)

remember a few years back when kanye tried to have his album exclusively on tidal? i saw hella bootleg vinyl copies at amoeba just a few weeks after the announcement. then the album went on all other platforms a few months later.

I've had the thought now and then that the music equivalent of the Criterion Channel would be interesting, maybe more lucrative for the artists... maybe that's what Bandcamp has presented itself to be?

The user-centric model would generally benefit the most popular artists at the expense of the less popular ones. This is because the people who stream the least tend to only know the popular artists (the "12-CD collection" people, as Alba put it, aren't going to have 12 obscure CDs), and the people who stream more than average are the ones who tend to know the obscure artists. The effect is mostly small (5-10%ish). But that's a lot larger than the 0.5% effect of the 1000-stream threshold, and both are regressive in the economic sense. The pro-rata method allows the most-active listeners to redirect a little bit of money to the less-popular artists they listen to.

This is probably a stupid idea, but could there be some sort of tip jar pop-up on a streaming UI. Like, “you’re really playing a lot of Caterina Barbieri lately, consider a direct payment to artist/label/representative” and there’s £5, £10, £20 options, maybe even a recurring payment, and Spotify take a small admin cut. If it’s Brian Eno you hit “don’t ask me again” cos Brian is doing ok. And maybe it’s algorithmically directed at the sub-billion level artists or smthg. Perhaps this is already there and I’ve missed it :/

Pretty sure there is something like that already in place

Is there? I end up buying on Bandcamp for that purpose, to give a more substantial chunk of change to artists I like, particularly lesser-known ones. Most of the time I don't even use the MP3s I purchase; I just end up listening to the album on Spotify for convenience!

Which I guess gives them an extra $0.07 or whatever, whooo

funny how Soundcloud never comes up in these conversations. kind of incredible how thoroughly they’ve managed to whiff on the opportunities in front of them

Just checked and not all artists but some (eg tomberlin) have a 'Fan Support' paypalme link on their profile xps

xp You can listen to the music you buy on Bandcamp directly on Bandcamp, btw.

Speaking of pirating, how do people do that now? I buy all of my music physical, I don't use Spotify, and I try to use Bandcamp as much as possible, but I still wind up with some records that have no digital counterpart.

Is Pirate Bay the thing?

Soulseek still

Went to tomberlin on Spotify and I see the link now. Not sure I've ever noticed it for any other artist but maybe my brain ignores it

Thanks for the tip, Christine

Cow_Art, Soulseek is still the thing— newest update is a little buggy but still works

Imagine we were in a world where you either had to buy physical media or you had to rely on radio / broadcast for hearing music. Home taping / sharing is illegal, no streaming anywhere (no free YouTube plays). In this scenario, do more artists make a living from their music than in today’s environment?

how many artists make a living from their music now?

xp Isn’t that just the world of the 1990s? Or are you saying all of today’s technology exists, but somehow YouTube and streaming haven’t been developed (which is a weird hypothetical)?

I’m saying if you take away streaming and illegal copying of music, and you cannot play any song just by searching it on YouTube, does that environment help musicians or hurt musicians compared to today’s reality.

morris otm, i was like "don't have to imagine, already lived it."

STRAWMAN ALERT

For artists it has been a disaster, yes - but from an archivist POV it seems catastrophic.

obv all true but its worth noting that some of the more dedicated invite-only t0rr3nt sites still serve as incredible archives. of course you need the invite AND they’re liable to go down at any given time (rip what, still mourning your loss…)

A little of topic, but what bothers me the most is how much bands have to charge for vinyl. I say this as an active touring musician who works the merch table.

Everyone is nice and sort of acknowledges that vinyl is somewhat overpriced because most bands don’t make much from Spotify. But it just seems backwards to me. True fans who come out to the show and buy merch should be rewarded for their effort and enthusiasm, not have to make up for everyone else who listens to the music for free.

CDs are the answer!

(Not the answer to why vinyl is so expensive, but how to support the artist and buy a great-sounding format for a more reasonable price)

I’m with you. I love CD’s. But they have the largest difference of production cost vs sale cost. A lot of indie artists in the 90s/00s did pretty well from selling 50 thousand CD’s.

I swear that I’m a red blooded American capitalist, but there is just something about this current model that really rubs me wrong. I’m sure that most of us are old enough to remember buying basically any classic rock record used for under 5 or 10 dollars. And it just seemed right. Like ya, Born To Run should be 4.99 at Second Hand Tunes.

I liken it to a bar having to overcharge for a beer. We all know that an Old Style costs under a dollar at the store. But because I’m at a bar and there’s people and a vibe happening we’ll both pretend that it should cost 3 dollars. But if you try to charge 6 dollars it just seems wrong. I feel we are at 6 dollars for an Old Style now for vinyl records and CD’s too for that matter.

I guess I just wish there was a more equatable way for fans of bands to support them. If I ever figure it out I’ll let you know.

Because the PayPal link direct to the band mentioned a few posts above just seems lame. Like a fan shouldn’t be compelled to just give a band money for nothing or to absolve their guilty conscience. Ahh. Whatever. I’m old.

More bands should sell CDs. The number of albums available only on either expensive vinyl or dipshit shoddy cassettes but not CD is nuts. I assume it makes financial sense for the performers (?) but it sucks.

Yay Spotify managed to make legal music piracy have an 80%+ market share, of which they have a near monopoly, while also making it almost impossible for the (relative) middle-class non-hobbyist musician to survive by requiring 4,000+ streams to get paid the equivalent of one $12 album sale. And yet with that stranglehold on listeners and artists, they supposedly can't even turn a profit (gee, make music worth nearly zero, and can't squeeze a profit out of that) and as such is firing another 1,500 (17% of the company) as the third round of layoffs this year. All while funneling $100,000,000+ to military tech.

These techno-wizard libertarians really are the fucking best, thank god they saved music from antiquated concepts.