After announcing increased prices, Spotify to Pay Songwriters About $150 Million Less Next Year
After announcing increased prices, Spotify to Pay Songwriters About $150 Million Less Next Year
Spotify will potentially pay songwriters about $150 million less in U.S. mechanical royalties next year after bundling its plans with audiobooks.
When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.
By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.
Gotta love all my friends who are really into music who happily use Spotify and don’t give a shit it is a weapon of class warfare being used on musicians disguised as a music player!
I basically lost all my drive to make something of my love of creating music seeing how little anyone in my society actually values music or musicians in terms of material support and reward, it is honestly pretty scary how broken music has become.
I really wish there was a better alternative to push my friends to. I do use Bandcamp, so at least I know more of my $$$ are going to the artists and I can take the music with me, but I'm not sure about the platform long-term.
As a musician and composer it really took the life out of my identity as a composer seeing an alternative to bandcamp never really form and then one day waking up to it bought by Epic.
I didn’t cry that day, but I might as well have, it made me extraordinarily sad to see that headline and I imagine there are actually countless talented musicians out there who will never actuate on their creative vision because the environment for music production is at this point, downright hostile towards artists and musicians considering the amount of work music production is.
It takes an obscene amount of work to take a song from something that has promise to being as polished as listeners demand nowadays, and listeners won’t even give your song a chance on actual speakers. You have to twist and warp your music so it sounds good on essentially monophonic phone speakers with shitty frequency coverage or otherwise nobody will give it a try on speakers for actually listening to music. Doesn’t matter though, nobody is going to actually support you for the art you make.
🙃
It seems like https://resonate.coop/ is still around tho which seems like a cool idea (a coop owned streaming service where listeners can stream-to-own a song).
I use Napster. I chose it way back when Spotify paid for the Rogan podcast, from a list of platforms that pay artists more. I'm not sure if that's true any longer, but look it up! I've been really happy with their service. (And it's really full circle for me, since I used their original service decades ago.)
ETA I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, but it says Napster is still one of the top-paying platforms.
Is Pandora any better than Spotify at paying artists?
I just downloaded Bandcamp, and after searching for my favorite artists, almost none are on the platform aside from 1-2. Did a search on like 20-25. This is why I use Spotify. Maybe if artists started acknowledging Bandcamp as a legitimate alternative to Spotify, then of course I'd listen there. But right now most stuff by my favorite bands are either covers or remixes.
Qobuz
Soon we'll have AI music generators and most people will be perfectly happy to only ever listen to what those churn out.
I mean, we'll see.
Maybe.
Maybe we will just look back at the period that is rapidly coming to a close as a golden era of music (and video games for that matter) where the tools became sophisticated, affordable and distributed for music production but venture capital hadn't yet destroyed any last vestiges of the monetary value of musician's labor (audio engineer's included) in recording contexts.
Of course, I am sure Spotify and other streaming services are coming around to the value of recorded music being unsustainably low, I mean everybody knows it deep down right? That is why they are going to continue to raise their prices. From the perspective of Spotify, the artists that actually do the work of making Spotify a valuable company aren't in principle excluded from their share of the pie when the line starts to go back up and the company has a chance to reverse some of the belt tightening and sacrifices everybody had to make to keep the lights on.... but every single one of these vapid losers believes deep down in their bones that the rules of the game say that it isn't the responsibility of shareholders or upper management of Spotify to just hand the musicians their fare share of the increasing profits, or even alert them to the fact that profits are in fact increasing in the first place. Musicians are not the customers nor the shareholders of Spotify, they are the commodified, interchangeable contractors that aren't much different than the day laborers who hang out outside of most Home Depots in the US looking for handyman work.
This is like when the English saw that the only crop Irish peasants could afford to grow on the side for subsistence farming to feed their families, potatoes, were getting destroyed by a potato blight, and decided that it would send the wrong message to let those Irish peasants have any of the rest of the crops that Irish farmers were growing to sell to foreign markets to simply pay the English rent for their farms ...... crops that were not significantly impacted by the potato blight because it would make the Irish reliant on handouts and encourage a problematic tendency towards apathy and entitlement stubbornly latent in the Irish population.
🔥 Burn 🔥 It 🔥 Down 🔥
(with love)
All the streamers suck; plus Spotify definitely sucks the most and it has the most subscribers. So I do my best to support artists I love by buying their albums in some physical form (vinyl if possible because it encourages active listening), t-shirts when I need a t-shirt, fan clubs, etc. It's all I can think to do.
Walk me through this.
Before Spotify, I’d buy a record (physical or digital) and listen to that. I pay the artist once. After Spotify, I buy a record and listen to it on Spotify. I pay the artist the normal record price and there’s a long tail from stream payouts (unless they don’t reach the payout threshold).
Before Spotify, if someone heard a song and didn’t buy the record, they didn’t pay the artist. After Spotify, if they still don’t buy a record, the artist now earns from stream payouts.
Finally, before Spotify, if someone bought a record but stopped buying after Spotify, the artist loses that record purchase. This is definitely bad. Was Spotify the real reason? Would something other than Spotify have pulled them away? What levels of fame are materially affected by this?
Do artists have to pay to be on Spotify? Is that the issue?
the artist now earns from stream payouts.
Do artists have to pay to be on Spotify? Is that the issue?
The issue is that artists don't make any actual money on Spotify, they are being forced to put their music on Spotify because that is where you have to put your stuff if you want to be a successful recording musician.
Meanwhile a couple of years ago the Spotify ceo said in defense of completely destroying any semblance of money making from recording music:
“There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough,” said Ek.
Streaming is great, but the structural evisceration of musicians and the value of labor in composing and producing is basically negative at this point given the huge amount of time that must go into a track to get it 100% there and ready for listeners.
How much do they really care? I'm not usually a quality snob, especially since I frequently use gear of varying quality making it moot, but wouldn't most people who are really into music at least consider the competition that offers higher quality files at similar if not the same price?
Or are they the type to only have local FLAC with their DAC? Because I like my collection but streaming is still worth the convenience for jumping into a new album.
Edit: I didn't really make it clear, my interest in services like Bandcamp wasn't higher quality music, it was that it was run by at least a relatively benign company that seemed to treat artists like actual human beings who artistic labor was inherently valuable. I would buy craft beer/cider/meader even if Budweiser or Coors Light was actually better quality beer, what I care about at the end of the day is my money going to someone or something good
I have spent a lotttt of time messing around with music production and learning what is pseudo-science (a whole fuckton of it) and what is real science. In all of the ABx testing I have done, read about, and seen demonstrated in person myself a quality MP3 with a decent bitrate encoding (idk 128kps or so?) using a decent algorithm and hell even a sampling rate of 41khz will produce an audio recording that when played back on a hifi audio system and level matched (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, it is well known in mastering and mixing that a louder mix always sounds better at first glance) is indistinguishable from the source .wav file to the human ear (I don't care how super human you claim your ear is).
People make this silly mistake of thinking that digitization introduces these sharp staircase edges into audio waveforms, which is actually kind of a hilarious misconception (which I completely understand, not trying to insult people's intelligence) because the entire idea of converting a waveform (an analog non-bandwith limited phenomena) into a bandwidth-limited digital waveform is utterly reliant on the idea that the analog reproduction of a digital square wave/stair step function with a voicecoil and diaphragm, physical hardware components with shape, size and crucially mass, must necessarily create a smooth analog waveform because physical hardware components have mass and momentum, they aren't theoretical ideas. It is better to think of a bandwith limited digital waveform as a series of movement commands for an RTS unit in Starcraft 2. The unit will naturally path between discrete points in a way that creates fluid movement, fundamentally it wouldn't make any sense for the unit to just teleport directly to where you click and then teleport directly to where you click next etc....
I mean let us consider Vinyl records for a second, maybe you like most people have a vague perception they are kind of a hifi audio thing for people that reallllllly care about audio quality and don't want to listen to chopped up and compressed digital audio files using a gasp consumer DAC that came stock in their laptop.
This quote from an old reddit thread discussing how CDs actually have far better signal-to-noise ratio fidelity than Vinyls (and really all decent quality digital audio files) about sums it up.
As for quantitative audio quality differences between the two mediums, the CD is superior. CDs operate at a sampling rate of 44.1kHz. These are discrete points, versus the continuous signal produced by a physical vinyl groove. However, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem explains why a 44.1kHz sampling rate is sufficient for completely reproducing frequencies up to 44.1 / 2 or 22.05 kHz (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem ). True response will actually be lower than 22.05 kHz due to the various anti-aliasing filters involved in the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion process to prevent frequencies above 22.05 kHz from aliasing down into the audible range (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing#Folding ).
Furthermore, the CD is recorded with 16 bits of resolution, results in an output with 65,536 discrete voltage 'steps' on the output. This does introduce some quantization noise, because the real signal is 'rounded' up or down to the nearest of the 65,536 steps. This is another area where some people claim vinyl is superior due to the lack of quantization of the output. But in practice, vinyl only has 9-10 bits of resolution (IIRC) due to manufacturing tolerances. To achieve around 16 bits of resolution, the tolerance of production for the groove would have to be on the order of 1/65,536 or ~0.001%. That's not going to happen on those tiny grooves. Also, you have to consider the non-zero inertia of the physical pick-up moving across those tracks, which will introduce a separate set of distortions as it moves around.
... Class warfare?
In my experience those kinds of people are Ice Spice fans.
Who think that SSSniperwolf arriving at another person's house live on Insta and doxxing them during a manic episode is 'slay'.
There'd a lot to unpack here
Wut
Please, people, for the love of the gods, stop using Spotify. There are numerous other services that are so much better value for your money and don't treat artists (as much) like trash.
And that being said, try to support your beloved artists directly as much as you can. Buying digital downloads or physical media will give them more money than a lifetime of streaming ever would. Plus you get to keep the higher-quality music even if the platform or artist goes tits-up.
Could you give me some examples of alternative services? I'm paying spotify right now, but i'll love to ditch it.
Sure, although keep in mind this will vary by region due to licensing issues.
Deezer is probably Spotify's best direct competitor. They are priced equally (depending on region) and now offer high-res streaming as default instead of a paid extra. They've been expanding with new features such as lyrics, collab playlists, song identification, and they recently improved their recommendation system. They also offer a discount if you buy subs yearly instead of monthly so you can save if you like the platform.
Apple Music is also an option now that Apple has put in some work to make the platform easier to use on non-Apple devices such as the recently added Windows app. It's not as feature-rich as Deezer but if you don't use those added features anyway then it is an option. I personally would phrase it as "has less bloat". If you own any Apple devices already then it will have tighter integration with them.
Tidal is the old favourite of audiophiles and music appreciators. They have been expanding their platform with new features and music and, somewhat recently, have also lowered their prices. High-res streaming is now included in the base sub tier. All of these alternatives pay artists more than Spotify but Tidal has one of the best artist payouts.
Qobuz is similar to Tidal and is a premium platform with a focus on quality. They are a newer service and are still expanding their regions, so I don't have personal experience with them as they only recently opened up to my country. Their price and feature set looks competitive, though, and their UI does look slick. They also have better artist payouts.
Amazon Music apparently has better payouts for artists but Amazon is a shit company so I've never looked into them further. I'll include YouTube Music here as well which has shitty payouts and is a shitty company.
Apple Music and Tidal.
Qobuz/Tidal/Deezer?
Napster pay decent artist royalties and offer a Spotify migration service for your playlists etc. as well as lossless music.
It's too convenient. Most people just want easy access and don't even think of the downstream impacts. If a song or two goes unavailable, probably won't notice. There is gonna need to be an alternative that is cheap and feature rich along with Spotify missing some steps. It's here for awhile.
While it doesn't have well known artists, indie streaming Resonate prides itself as having the most generous (or at least, close to) payments to artists. To support this, it has an innovative payment model akin to higher purchase. You pay a little for the first listen to a track, but the price increases through subsequent listens. After 9 listens, you own the track outright. The total cost of ownership is around $0.9
That's a cool model, at least at first glance
One of these services needs to release a feature like Spotify Connect, can't switch without a replacement for that.
Spotify Connect
Unless I’m reading this wrong, is this just Spotify’s solution for listening with friends? If so, that’s far from a Spotify exclusive feature.
Edit: Okay. So it’s their version of Airplay. It’s too bad Apple never opened it up. Streaming to remote devices has works for almost 20 years now in the Apple ecosystem.
It's not really just Spotify. I'm a hobbyist music producer. I uploaded my entire catalog through Distrokid about two years ago. Distrokid serves just about every streaming service. It costs $20 a year for the most basic package. I've got ~8 million listens according to Distrokid, and that nets me about $40 US. So, I made my money back. Not bad for 20 years of work. Haha!
I don't really care about the numbers, like I said, I'm a hobbyist. I make music because I enjoy making music. It would never be my career unless I dropped everything and struck out touring trying to make it in an industry that traditionally chews up and spits out hopefuls. I'm not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.
not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect
What gets me is that, for the right style of music, age or attractiveness shouldn't matter as much as it does. You should be able to create your art, whatever kind of art it is, and have the art itself be judged on its merits. Instead we've got a bunch of our culture still somehow wrapped up in these veneers of attractiveness. It's kind of maddening, to be honest. If you're in your 50's and making 90's style Acid House or 2000's style Trance it shouldn't matter what you look like. If you're a DJ it shouldn't matter if you look like Shirley Temple or Shirley Manson. And yet here we are.
8 million listens netting you only 40 bucks really is insane, isn't it? I used to think radio royalties were bad: I remember Sting talking about how every time Roxanne got played on the radio someone somewhere got 3 cents. He didn't say who got the 3 cents, nor did he say how much of that 3 cents went to him. I'm not 100% sure about those numbers ("my memory is muddy, what's this river that I'm in?") but they're a damn sight more impressive than whatever crumbs the streaming companies are paying, somehow a thousand times less than the radio. Spotify's announcement last year that they weren't even going to bother paying for songs with less than 1000 streams per month was a shocker - what stops them from making it 2000, or 10,000?
Still, being a hobbyist isn't all bad. I've been releasing jazz cover-versions of pop songs for about 2.5 years now, and have netted about 25 bucks so far :) Who knew jazz versions of Toxic or Rusted From The Rain could be so popular?
If I made 3 cents a stream, I'd have a quarter of a million...
You could always don a stage persona like Marshmello or Daft Punk. Then nobody cares what you look like under the mask.
I'm in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).
But regardless, I think there is an element of selling your soul to Hollywood to really make it big, and I just don't have that kind of commitment at this point in my life. I like relaxing and anonymity.
I’m in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).
There's never a better time to put yourself out there! I resisted it for twenty years. My most "successful" release is one of my least polished tracks. I recorded it just out of university on a Pentium with a stolen microphone, pirated software, a freebie guitar, and a ZOOM 505. It's got 4 million listens and is responsible for half my income. By comparison, I've released stuff that I think sounds like it was professionally recorded in a studio that no one listens to.
I appreciate this. Can I have a listen? I also make music... Sometimes.
I release everything as "Underwaterbob" - my username. You can find me just about everywhere. If you don't have a subscription, it's all on YouTube, too: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ_MZ9yX0STsY1l2Ml2zBFw
I make a wide variety of music.
I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either
Idk. I was happy to pay to hear Mic Jagger live and he looks like shit.
Worst case scenario, just become the new Gorillas
Not sure I'd use one of the most iconic sexy lead singers in history as an example. No matter much how much he looks like shit now.
I'm not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.
Just start making IDM. Looking weird and/or unattractive seems to be a requirement (and, don't get me wrong, I'm here for it)
weekly PSA that spotify is a dumb company who makes no money because they're stupid.
To put it bluntly, between the artists, and the musicians, there is the publisher (the traditional music company) the money pretty much only goes to the publisher, because spotify doesn't want to make money, nor do they want artists to make money. And the artists put their shit on spotify because people believe that spending 15 dollars a month on a service that doesnt pay artists, apparently pays artists.
Go support your local musical artists.
And the artists put their shit on spotify because people believe that spending 15 dollars a month on a service that doesnt pay artists, apparently pays artists.
It's probably more a case of artists acknowledging the fact that streaming services are one of, if not the, primary sources of music discovery and consumption for many these days. Even if they won't make money off it, by not being available on these platforms, they may as well not exist for most people. That's something that only huge, already established names can pull without feeling it.
you know what else streams your music? The fucking internet, that shits free! Literally just posting your shit on a torrent will give you tons of traction to work with. Especially if you already have a pretty significant listener base. Plus you also get the benefit of people like me who are significantly more inclined to buy physical releases of media.
Regardless, streaming is a good way of getting people to hear your shit, if you really want to use a streaming service, don't go through a publisher, or at the very least, a mainstream publisher. They tend to fuck you over.
To add to this, buy their merch and physical copies of their albums. Also, go to shows! Lots of small bands would love a bigger crowd and can be seen for cheap or free.
exactly this, buy merch, buy albums, give them your money directly if you can. (artists, please just let me give you money, i like your shit, maybe i don't want to buy shit tons of plastic ok?)
Spotify negotiated shit deals when they were a startup and they’ll basically forever be not profitable because of it.
Their strategy was probably the classic startup strategy. Grow at all costs and figure out profitability later. These days it’s rather obvious that this strategy sucks and is doomed to fail (for most cases).
The big record labels are shareholders in Spotify so they're happy to get less money in streaming royalties because that's the part they have to share with artists, but the value of their shares they get to keep all for themselves.
https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/
ah of course, schizo economics, how could i forget. "trust me, i will hold shares for you, i promise" Though this still isn't a good position to be in, because now the publishing companies essentially run spotify, so spotify fucked themselves even more lol.
I always wonder how the hell don't make money, it must be some kind of “smart” accounting.
It's because they are 100% reliant on the record labels, and the record labels know that. So the record labels can charge Spotify whatever they want, because what is Spotify going to do?
That's why Spotify tried to hard to move into Podcasts and now Audio books, so that they are less reliant on the record labels.
Go support your local musical artists.
I miss X Fest... :(
i'm still riding the high of all the older artists from the 90s till now that i've missed out on. We'll see how long that lasts lol.
"Let's throw away all of our physical media! All digital streaming music, movies and books will be so much better! Everything we want, always available, anywhere!!!"
Somewhat true if you're a seasoned sailor of the high seas, not so much if not...
I'm fighting this fight with phone and sd cards. It's part of the reason they are killing sd card slots to get people to put everything in the cloud.
Sadly most people are morons and are doing exactly that.
Most people do not understand that there are many ways to burn a book.
You don't need to be a "seasoned sailor". It's incredibly easy IMO to get what you want if you're willing to put forth a tiny amount of effort.
The seasoning helps to know where it’s safe to put into port though.
We are entering the golden age of self hosting and I’m gonna go all in!!!
And for those wondering what about artists, two words: live shows
Yeah I'm done with spotify.
Back when it was a fiver, I could get the appeal and had a subscription myself.
At 11 bucks it comes at the price of a CD per month, every month. I didn't buy that much music annually, ever. So right now we are entering a territory where streaming is exceeding the price of my regular music consumption patterns. I'll go back to buying physical media and torrenting whatever old stuff is no longer available and can't be found on ebay.
Fuck 'em with a cactus.
CDs are cheap as fuck now.
I’d cancel my Spotify but my teenager would drop dead.
That's what's stopping me too. I've tried to convince them that Youtube Music (I'm a holdover from the Play Music days, RIP) is good enough but they won't have it. I miss Songza.
I typically like to just buy my music but the appeal of spotify, to me, is the algorithm and being able to play random singles and one offs from artists I would probably not ever hear a single thing from otherwise.
I like bandcamp a lot more than spotify for finding new music. A lot of it feels less soulless because it is (presumably) written by real people.
https://daily.bandcamp.com/essential-releases/essential-releases-may-10-2024 - timely https://daily.bandcamp.com/lists/japanese-acid-folk-list - genre deep dive
Plus on a given album page, like https://castleratband.bandcamp.com/album/into-the-realm-2 , it has links to "Other people liked this", and the genre tags. It's pretty good for discoverability, though maybe not as smooth as the soulless algorithms of spotify.
Bandcamp sold to epic and then got sold to some other vultures so they might turn to shit, but until that happens it's a good, profitable, seemingly equitable platform. Artists got a big cut, you got drm-free music. The idea seems solid, if you can avoid the "infinite growth at all costs" and "i'm gonna sell out, fuck you" traps.
I use Spotify regularly on my PC without a subscription and an ad blocker running. Does that qualify as fucking them with a cactus?
I do the same with youtube and adblock, so I guess that qualifies.
Yeah, people forget that the appeal of Spotify was being able to make a free account and listen to any music. It was okay that it was worse cause it was easy.
Idk how paying for it became common… maybe cause those free users got too comfortable with it.
I don't subscribe, bit I wouldn't think about it compared to the price of physical media. I would compare it to satellite radio. Or cable radio. (Does Spectrum still do that?)
All three are paid, ad-free radio, sorta, though streaming services are on-demand.
Just cancelled, have been a customer since 2015 or so.
I’ve said many times I would gladly pay more, if it were an elective extra cost that goes 100% to the artists you listen to.
So $11/mo to Spotify, then I could elect to pay another amount of my choosing that gets split up based on what I’m listening to and goes 100% to the artists. I don’t love it but it would be an acceptable solution to me.
A better solution would be for Spotify to be fair and pay artists accordingly from the start… buttttt Capitalism, and Spotify is publicly traded so no chance of that ever happening. I’m out.
Tidal is your friend
The nice thing about Tidal is the attention to detail about the music or album you’re listening to. You get writers, producers and recording musicians for all the tracks. Sometimes additional Artwork.
Apple had the right idea all those years ago when they were selling those enhanced digital albums. Almost felt like purchasing a vinyl or cd and getting all the goodies that come with it. INCLUDING properly crediting the artists. Not sure they do that very well anymore.
I wish. But it says it's not available in my region. Which is really weird in the current globalized world.
I cancelled too. they were resetting my password and forcing me to create a new one once or twice a week. all because i would use spotify on my desktop and my phone.
they only help they would offer was "you password is not secure". yes, my 16character random generated password is not secure. fuck em.
"but if we pirate things the singers won't get anything!"
yeah, fuck the music companies and fuck the movie companies. The moral thing to do is to pirate everything you want to watch, read and listen to.
the actors, writers and singers and everyone working behind the scenes are already getting next to nothing for their hard work compared to what the executives at all those corporations are getting for just sitting on their asses.
....sorry I blacked out, what were we talking about?
You should never pirate anything! that would be bad!
Pirate and go to live shows.
Companies love selling you digital stuff cause they are essentially giving you nothing (as in it doesn’t cost them anything).
go to live shows
Live shows not put on by Ticketmaster! Shit ...
God I wish more artists would support direct donations. Yoink the file from wherever and in exchange sneak 10 bucks into the artists pockets.
I mean, Spotify is a great service for the consumer. One reasonable monthly fee for most of the music in the world.
If a similar video streaming service existed for 40€/month, I'd pay for it in a heartbeat. Now I have a plethora of arr apps and a vpn, and Plex. But it's a hassle sometimes.
We're all aware of the issues it created for the artists, and I'd be willing to double the fee if that money directly went to the artists, but this is where the capitalist model fails, as that won't maximize the profits for shareholders.
If we ever come up with a way to fix the underlying greed models that come with publicly traded companies, that would be great.
As it stands, it is what it is, but I'm glad we have this, instead of a "different Spotify per music publisher".
I'd pay 40€ a month for an officially licensed private torrent tracker. If they gave discounts based on the amount seeded I doubt they would even need the stupidly expensive infrastructure.
I don't even have the arr stack because it's cheaper, just because it's more convenient and no one can take it away from me
Maybe it's because my schema for torrents is dichotomous with licensed uses, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this.
Is the distinction you're making here between your proposed 'licensed private tracker' and something like a subscription-based catalogue (à la Audible) simply the way it's distributed (in this case a centralized vs peer-to-peer)?
I like the idea of distributed media networks, but I really doubt any copyright owner would go for a distribution network that they don't have any level of control over. The idea of an 'officially licensed private torrent tracker' seems incompatible with how that industry works.
I'd happily pay for an unlicensed private torrent tracker, though.
I’m glad we have this, instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.
What would be wrong with a model where artists had their own website where they could distribute their music? That's what Faircamp does. Then people could actually download it, rather than use a companies crappy client with DRM.
Spotify is a great service for the consumer. One reasonable monthly fee for most of the music in the world.
Plus ads.
instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.
I was perfectly happy with Napster, before it got blown up.
As it stands, I've been leaning on SoundCloud and Bandcamp when I'm hunting for something indie and pirating or going vinyl for anything mainstream.
Spotify's model is doomed to fail over time. Far better to own the media than stream it.
Spotify's model is doomed to fail over time.
This right here. At the very least, unless they are not beholden to shareholders, it will eventually reach market saturation and will have to cut artists' share, hike prices up, or add more paywalls to keep the line going up
Is there a median breakdown of the split on Spotify. How much the artist get, the label and Spotify. I get that the split between artists and labels could probably vary a lot. But I get the feeling that Spotify aren't the only one whos beeing greedy
You'd be correct
The greed isn't inherent in the system, in the humans. We have to fix our self-serving nature first.
Oh yes why fix economic system when we can just defeat human nature. Great idea that’ll be much easier.
facepalm we are literally the same species of Homo sapiens we have been for thousands of years, the problem is most certainly inherent in the system and we need to smash the system and make something kinder.
In 2023, Taylor Swift got $100 million from Spotify. How much should she get?
Not sure what the relevance of this comment was, considering what I said
I already commented somewhere else in this thread, but I've been just buying music via bandcamp and I feel pretty good about it. If I buy about one new album a month for $8, it's cheaper than spotify and after a couple years I have a large library of music I own outright.
This works with my listening habits, which are something like "I have like one new (-to me) album on heavy rotation every couple of weeks". Someone who's more of a "i never listen to the same song twice" extreme wouldn't have as good a time.
This works with my listening habits, which are something like "I have like one new (-to me) album on heavy rotation every couple of weeks"
I actually kinda do the same thing, so you've got me thinking I should start just buying albums. Build a Jellyfin server so I can still stream music, and just not deal with subscriptions.
And actually, most of the time I buy records that come with digital downloads anyway. Time to rethink my Tidal subscription.
More money for the executives and less for everyone else. People need to start standing up to this shit.
It would be nice if we had a monetizable platform on the Fediverse for vocal artists and musicians.
Technology is so amazing. It is finally possible to pay artists in exposure
Not that anyone does that either
Definitely thinking about cancelling with this. I’ve used Spotify as long as I can remember, after finally switching over from pandora radio.
Their shuffle and discovery algorithms suck so much now that it’s nearly impossible to listen to more than 20-30 songs they just keep repeating.
Add on the extra, inserted ads in podcasts, there’s really no reason to continue to use their platform.
Then again, I’m probably going to YT music, which is only marginally better, but since I pay for YT premium already there’s no additional cost
I wish they had something between "top songs" and "completely random" when listening to a band.
Like, sure, Sweet Child of Mine, Welcome to the Jungle, and Paradise City are great and all, but there's only so often you can listen to them, and the only alternative is to be reminded that Chinese Democracy exists.
Stop using this shitty service. There are much better options. I like Tidal, but even Apple music seems decent compared to Spotify.
The audio quality alone should be telling people just how bad spotify is.
If I still used Apple products I'd still be using Apple Music. Good sound with the ability to upload my own music library to mesh with it seamlessly to cover the gaps of what wasn't available? It was my ideal music streaming service.
Now I'm on Deezer but every streaming service has gaps in their catalog for what I listen to.
Slowly working on getting my own music library together to get rid of streaming services entirely. Plan on using Plex for now, but eventually I'll just move to a phone that has an SD card slot.
Mix of purchases and stuff downloaded and saved from Deezer.
I am okay with YouTube premium with the music app. I am no audiophile so I can have all the gaps filled with music videos and just play the audio.
I dunno. Spotify stopped billing me for the family plan I was paying for some years ago and at this point I've got five accounts mooching off of them and I'm using powershell to download gigabytes worth of music off of them...
Like, Spotify is evil but at this point I'm a negative number for them every month. I'm gonna keep on going until they decide to shut off the hose.
Oh, but I do go to concerts and buy records.
Does Tidal pay artists better?
Two to three times what Spotify pay artists per stream.
The trouble I've found with Apple music for me is that a lot of the classical stuff that I listen to on YouTube Music (RIP forever GPM you were the best) isn't on Apple, but a lot of other content that isn't anywhere else is there. So you're having to choose between one or the other and their stuff kind of sucks.
I love how no one mentions that the great success business Spotify got all their starting music from the mp3 warez scene.
Early Spotify songs still had the meta data from those files, including misspelled song names and years of issue.
Because don’t most people know their history by now?
I would imagine that the vast majority of Spotify's listeners, and even critics, don't care about where they got their initial music from
No matter what you think about Apple, Apple Music pays multiple times more than Spotify
And Tidal pays multiples more than Apple.
It’s up to you if you want to support artists or not.
I switched to Tidal after Spotify announced the price increase. The catalogue is basically identical, the apps are much more intuitive, and the audio quality is higher (they recently rolled their premium FLAC subscription into the basic one).
I had to retrain the algorithm for a bit, but that was not so difficult. There are services that can migrate/convert playlists which might actually work for favourites as well.
Also, it's easy easier to download stuff from Tidal, which is very nice for listening to Audiobooks with a dedicated player.
Thank you for the information. Not a fan of putting the blame on the consumer here though. Spotify is the asshole here, not the people who want to pay for the music.
Just want to add an extra FU to Google as a consumer and Android user. Killing off GPlay Music for YT Music was just a nasty nice, especially given that the latter has no mechanism to purchase music and a lot of the content or mixes in from YouTube uploads seems of pretty dubious legitimacy
Does YouTube music pay its artists? I prefer an Android platform. A lot of the stuff I want isn't on Apple Music for classical is also why.
I fucked off Spotify after the Jo Rogan debacle.
I’ve been with Tidal since. I miss the Spotify recommendation algorithm but that’s it.
I've been a paying member for almost a decade. I've been training it that entire time with what I do and don't like. I've also been using their suggested playlists for years and further refining what they recommend. So their algorithm is a huge part of it for me. I am constantly finding songs and artists I wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise.
That said, I've been holding my nose while I renewed the service for the past couple of years. I'm willing to part ways for Tidal if it's a comparable service with better benefits to the artists.
i paid for the best tier Tidal for a year and it was a worse experience than spotify. Their catalogue is incomplete compared to spotify
Same
Joe Rogan debacle?
There's plenty of info if you google your comment.
https://www.salon.com/2022/02/07/spotify-joe-rogan-artists-subscribers/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/arts/joe-rogan-spotify.html
Etc etc
And 99.99999 percent of musicians lament being humiliated and poor.
Stop releasing your music on Spotify. They depend on you for their reputation as having all the music and will give you nothing in return except ever-broadening inequality and ever-narrowing artistic culture. People have mocked boomers for claiming that music is dying but that's exactly what is happening.
15 hours of audiobooks per month is a joke. That's not even one longer book.
And it's not every member of the plan, it's only the primary user. Also the "buy more hours" of an audiobook is such a crappy idea to get us to buy an audiobook, and gosh it's not even all audiobooks it's only the first of the series. Even if you add more hours, you can't listen to the 2nd book. This is half the reason why they had to raise prices. It costs them a bit for those 15 hours and the music lovers and creators are paying the price for their misunderstanding
I didn't think it could be worse... I just bought one Dell mini PC and I will turn it into server and I will start self host a lot of my services. Audiobookshelf is going to be one of them
Really, really long sigh
TIDAL.
😂😂😂
In seriousness, what is the payment to artists like nowadays on TIDAL? Dare I even ask?
As far as I know, it's $0.025 per stream. Spotify's rate is $0.003. Pretty substantial difference. TIDAL has the highest rate in the streaming industry.
EDIT: If you really want to support artists, go to Qobuz and buy albums. I'm planning to get a Sublime subscription so I can own my music and support artists even more (while not missing out on freedom to play what I want on demand).
Also, fixed the decimals and changed TIDAL to a more accurate average.
I feel so bad for artists. They deserve to get paid for their hard work. Unfortunately, it’s been so hard for me to convince friends to move away from these predatory streaming platforms. A lot of people don’t want to lose having an unlimited catalogue at their fingertips.
Maybe I’m going to sound like a boomer here, but I don’t get why people need an unlimited catalogue at all. What’s wrong with paying artists directly to get their vinyls and CDs (or digital album)? What happened to curating your music library? What happened to the days where you’d buy CDs and listen to them over and over again, front to back? What happened to the days where playlists were manually curated for yourself, or even better, for your friends? Some of my fondest memories are music related, of my best friends painstakingly selecting a playlist of songs for me and burning them onto a CD for me to enjoy. What happened to the days where we didn’t need a constant stream of music pushed to us by an impersonal AI? What happened to developing your own unique and interesting personal taste?
I get that these streaming platforms are convenient, but it feels to me that we’re losing the ability to actively listen to music, to truly appreciate it, to understand the labor of love that it was for the artists, all for the sake of convenience. I don’t want music to be convenient, music is a fucking gift. I don’t want to be pushed AI generated recs, or AI generated music.
I’m rambling, lost my train of thought, and probably sound like a Luddite, but I have such strong feelings related to music and just hate these streaming platforms so much. I refuse to use them.
tldr please please please support your favorite artists by buying from them directly
The music world that er have today cannot be compared.
If we just had CDs 99.99999% of artists would just never be put in a store. There would just not be shelf space.
Say what your will about streaming but the internet has allowed a lot more people to make music and to get heard.
I realize I kept saying CDs, but I also include buying digital version in what I meant, edited my original post to say that. My main gripe is that we do have these services in which musicians can put their work out there and get paid fairly for it, but people don’t use them. Buying digital album is cheaper than monthly streaming price for Spotify too. These services that people value for convenience are hurting artists. We even have musicians commenting so here.
What happened to curating your music library?
Nothing. Because that was never really a thing. What you're describing was/is just a hobby. And, like most hobbies, it's small and niche relative to the industry as a whole. Most people were listening to music for free through radio since forever. Then TV was added into the mix. Paying for music, unless it's a concert, is just not really a concept humanity is familiar with.
Spotify can die in a fire for all I care. Sail the high seas and if you like an artist buy physical releases/merch/tickets.
I still buy everything on CD that I can get from good bands. Nothing beats CD quality and durability. My CDs from 30+ years ago still play just fine except for the few that have too many scratches from abuse.
After I get a new CD I rip it to high quality MP3 and add it to my personal streaming library.
I've seen quite a few download codes included with vinyl releases that have 24 bit wav/flac files available. Some will even offer 88.2/96kHz files.
You could argue that the quality difference isn't detectable between those and an MP3 rip of a CD though.
So instead of having the artists make the small per stream income, you suggest they get $0? Buying their releases/merch/tickets is irrelevant to the platform. If anything, the model of these streaming platforms is just further shifting to advertisement for artists to drive people to shows.
They suck ass. Stop paying them money.
I switched from streaming back to my old ipod. Moding this old player was one of the best decisions in my career as music listner. The best thing about it is that my phone can run low on battery but i am still able to listen to chumbawamba.
Decentrelize your hardware!
Is there a (possibly libre) way to maintain a structured music library not tied to a streaming service??
I would happily leave but I fear for my huge library of artists and albums that I have discovered...
It's not easy, fast, or free, but it is worth it. I currently still have a Spotify account, but I'm weaning myself off. I've been going the Bandcamp + jellyfin route. Buy an album a month (about the price of monthly streaming) and add it to my personal library. Next month, check what I've been listening to most on Spotify and buy that. It's twice as expensive (for now) but I'm supporting artists more directly and have an exit strategy for Spotify. Curious about other's approaches!
That's great! Not sure where you live (because shipping), but a lot of artists (I listen to) have limited physical releases on Bandcamp. Sometimes it's worth the extra few bucks. My digital collection is bigger tho.
So I actually do spend more on musicians than only streaming services CEO people. There is of course the ecological aspect of the production of the physical releases, but I don't drive nor eat meat. I'd buy their stuff at a concert too.
I use Slsk for my other needs.
That's what I do
Get my Music from different sources (most streaming services can be downloaded from) and then tag them with MusicBrainz Picard. Sorts them neatly, gives them mostly way more metadata than any other streaming service and sometimes I tag them by myself
Currently using Symphony on android because it supports user defined artist metadata seperators (really wish more music apps would have that feature)
On PC I'm using mpc and controll it mostly via cli
Yeah, I've come across MusicBrainz projects and they all seem really nice! I was thinking about organizing just the names and not the files, but might as well go that way sooner or later
Didn’t see it mentioned, but I self host Navidrome. It’s great and open source. I get most my music from Bandcamp, or even rip CDs I check out from the library.
Seems nice, thanks! I'd like to give it a try
Spotify could charge ten times their current price - indeed, should have been, for nearly the entire catalogue of western music? even at $100/mo it would have been a steal - and even so, they wouldn't be paying artists significantly more, or even at a reasonable rate.
The model is the problem. The middleman is the problem. The service itself is the problem. It can never work in a way that pays artists fairly as long as it requires human oversight, administration and intervention, let alone all the wasteful shit like advertising and legal overhead/payola for politicians.
Get an AI to do it right, though... puffpuff, pass
thank you. the fact that we aren't rioting to have more automated services that pass the cost benefit on to the people is something i'll never understand. we have the tools to build utopia but they can;t figure out how to make enough money from it.
So.. is there an alternative to Spotify for music streaming inside the EU that also has a large DB of metal? Ideally a service that gives a bigger share to the artists.
bandcamp is nice. They give much more to artist, and allow you to download flac. So that you can enjoy your music without worrying about your listening habits feeding the machine.
Our share is 15% on digital items, and 10% on physical goods. Payment processor fees are separate and vary depending on the size of the transaction, but for an average size purchase, amount to an additional 4-7%. The remainder, usually 80-85%, goes directly to the artist or their label, and we pay out daily.
I dont know if they have all the metal you want, but maybe Youtube Music. One youtuber has stated that he gets about twice as much per view from YT Music than he does from Spotify.
Spotify seems to be trying to transition to podcasts anyway - it’s harder to get it to recommend music. My guess is that eventually the Spotify and the record labels will have more disagreements about royalties, and that Spotify will pivot more towards podcasting - independent folks who have far less power in negotiations.
And this is why I refuse to listen to ads or pay for spotify.
If I were an artist at this point I'd half rather the listener just steal the record. At least then you're not giving the money to Spotify if you aren't going to pay for it outright.
Patch your spotify install to get free premium. If they're gonna raise prices and lower what they pay musicians, there's no valid reason not to.
Well this is legit. Thank you
This is why I don't feel bad about pirating
Fun fact of the day The orginal creator of spotify asked a bunch of artists to use there works for his business pitch. And they denied him, to which for his business pitch for investors he pirated audio for the demo.
So everything spotify says about piracy is ironic, because without piracy they wouldnt exist.
Pirating and collecting albums.
I've ditched Spotify last year when their app has suddenly started draining battery on my phone (and also because of them being so eager to give Rogan a platform). I've switched to Deezer, but I've ran into the same issue I've had with Spotify for a while - even if I download a playlist for offline usage, it'll still try to connect to the internet, so if I was somewhere with poor reception, it'd get stuck on a spinning circle for a minute before giving up and showing me the songs I've wanted to play. I ended my Deezer subscription, rebuilt the library on my laptop, and just manually transfer files to my phone. I get instant access to my music with no delays, with music players that offer much better experience and handle shuffle and queues the way I want to, and aren't a glorified Chrome tab on desktop. and if I really like an album, I'll just straight up buy one. I listen to music a fucking lot (two years ago i was in top 0.2% of my country's Spotify users), and according to some screenshots of my Spotify Wrapped, I've played my artists songs for 1200 minutes, which translates to 300-400 plays at best (probably less than that, given that many of their songs are around 6 to 8 minutes long). given that, from what I've found online, 1000 plays gives artists 4 bucks, I could just buy two of their songs on Bandcamp and pirate the rest of their music, and they'll still get more money in a year from me.
I do miss seamless playback switching between devices, though. it was a really nice Spotify feature... when it worked, that is.
ve ran into the same issue I’ve had with Spotify for a while - even if I download a playlist for offline usage, it’ll still try to connect to the internet, so if I was somewhere with poor reception, it’d get stuck on a spinning circle for a minute before giving up and showing me the songs I’ve wanted to play.
That's by design and all streaming apps would do it like that to enforce abuse prevention.
Edit: added word at the endthing is, it didn't do that in the past, or at least it wouldn't be that noticeable to me. but some time ago Spotify introduced a feature that would automatically add "smart" suggestions to the playlist, and it makes sense it requires network access for that. what doesn't make sense is that it still wants the connection even when I kept that feature disabled.
Fuck stopify. If u have any respect/appreciation for music and who created it you should not be using spotify.
I've tried all the popular alternatives, and not one was better.
Theoretically, buying the songs without DRM felt best, but having enjoyed nearly 6,5K different artists on Spotify so far, that won't really work.
Unfortunately, as an average consumer, that means I'm sticking with Spotify for now.I hope their platform soon becomes over inundated with AI slop from Udio and Suno to the point it is unusable and collapses.
I already canceled with the last price increase, because it went from €9,99 to €12,99 for me they don't need to convince me that i made the right decision.
Gotta fund Barcelona's €240 million sponsor deal somehow
Thank God for a certain manager. Haven't paid for Spotify in years. Fuck em.
Ugh, that's disgusting. Which manager so I know to stay away from it?
X gon give it to ya! 😉
😂
Metallica, Dr Dre, et al were not wrong in suing Napster. We're seeing the fruits of the evolution of that format. I guess at least people aren't downloading "Get Back ft Stevie Wonder - Oasis.wma" anymore, and somebody is making money off of it. Just (mostly) not the artists that make the music.
Low cost, distributed digital distribution is absolutely a thing. Phones have enormous storage anymore, so much so most people could have their entire music collections available on their phones or tablets - not everyone - but most people.
A distributed streaming platform would really be the way to do this and make it cost effective for everybody. An app that could stream from a list of sources (remember playlists? M3U files that could play from multiple Internet locations - yeah, that already exists and has since before 2000) would enable people to stream the music they haven't found yet or are searching for.
Seems like an interesting open source software project, to be honest. Funkwhale is probably a good basis for extension, and could be run by the artists (or provided to then via a simple click to setup platform) for low overhead.
dibbidens
the music i get access to for the price i pay is worth far more than the money i don't get for the music i wrote.
15 hours hardly covers a single book
Although it's far from the best, Deezer has a much fairer royalties compensation method, which is more closely based on a per-user basis, rather than total amount of minutes listened (that Spotify currently employs).
This isn't super related to OPs post but I thought it might be worth mentioning aswell.
I've been using Deezer for a while now. Not only is the streaming quality (FLAC) much better but also the artist compensation much fairer. Plus, they at least act as if they actually cared for the customer...
The very great and very funny singer Neko Case made a playlist on Spotify and entitled it "PAY FOR IT YOU CHEAP PRICKS!!!!" I howled.
I've heard good things about tidal in regards to paying artists (more) fairly. Does anyone know more about the alternatives or has experience with them? Also in terms of the library size I'm not sure how the services compare...
I love my Tidal subscription. Most everything that's on Spotify is on Tidal now unless it's an exclusive. Most annoying part will be tranferring your playlists
I believe tidal actually has a larger library than Spotify, and offers a tier that lets you listen to higher quality of music. Similar pricing to Spotify I think. I had it for a while and really liked it, only stopped paying for it because I'm broke so I'm sailing the seas for now
Thank you for sharing your experience and may the winds blow ever in your favor! Ahoy!
Alexa, play John Mellencamp - Ain't That America
Napster exists but people just ignore it
I'm just gonna keep exploiting the 3 month free trial with all my accounts. I still have my own local library as well.
Google Spotiflyer and Spotube at your convenience.
Sounds about right. I remember when it was the RIAA. This is just more proof that time is a hamster wheel.
I miss Resonate.
Just download music from 3rd party sites. Not that hard, don't understand why you are complaining so much.
Capitalism!!! USA!! USA!! USA!! 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲 You poor fucks don't deserve music.
I think spotify is swedish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify
We don't deserve music for other reasons too... like we don't care what the lyrics are even about as long as it "sounds good."
What are you talking about?
Thought of calling ya
But you won't pick up
Another fortnight lost in America
Move to Florida
Buy the car you want
But it won't start up
Til you touch, touch, touch meThose are lyrics written by an actual God.
Never heard of it.
