#201

Yeah I’m glad someone is trying this. Presumably getting major labels on board is the main stumbling block.

1 Like
#202

Seems that way yeah - even after 5+ years they mostly have a fairly niche library and new labels are added quite slowly. It’s definitely a decent enough selection for those into electronic music and more experimental stuff, including some bigger indies like Planet Mu and Hyperdub who have their catalogues up.

1 Like
#203

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact streaming exists as it does because MP3 piracy exists and Spotify produced a model that provided a minimum level that people would accept to not steal stuff.

We might ‘fix’ Spotify but not fix remuneration for people who make music.

Not 100% sure. I presumed Spotify is funded by venture capitalists who aren’t likely to want a model where they can’t maximise payback at some point. They are probably the people stopping stuff.

1 Like
#204

Not any more.

Spotify started out with VC money, like most tech startups, but in 2018 it went to the stock market and now anyone can buy shares in Spotify if they want.

Ownership (as of Feb 2020):

Co-founders Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon: 30.6%
Large institutional investors (e.g. pension funds, insurance companies, etc): 25.3%
Tencent, a Chinese entertainment company: 9.1%
Universal Music: 3.5%
Sony Music: 2.4%

The rest of the shares is owned by a large number of investors who all own each less than 5% of Spotify.

1 Like
#205

I’ve seen a good few artists state that they’d rather people steal their music than use Spotify. seems to be the growing feeling.

#206

Oh totally. Although I think there was probably a relatively brief period where iTunes sort of did the job for the mainstream? Provided an easy way to essentially access all the music at a reasonable cost without getting into illegal activity or knowing about certain bits of the web or p2p and all that.

I guess the reply I gave above was trying to go back to the original thread question in the light of Bandcamp days, Spotify wrapped, and what everyone has brought up here. So this is what I’d like to see in a streaming service and is what I’d drop Tidal (in my case) for. I’m sure Spotify and Apple Music and maybe 1 or 2 other services (and YouTube of course) are here to stay so I guess the question is - is there a viable alternative that works better for artists and listeners who care about artists even if it is a niche?

Apologies, I know I’m being dull.

1 Like
#207

That’s interesting isn’t it. I mean if you never make any money then why should Spotify. Bandcamp pay what you want model works at that point doesn’t it.

#208

No it’s fine. I actually meant it as a general reply with only that specific bit for you.

1 Like
#209

This is an interesting piece discussing the ‘wrapped’ stuff amongst other things.

It features an insightful quote from Holly Herndon who points out the inherent stupidity of valuing something by the number of plays.

7 Likes
#210

Here’s the thought I can’t escape.

That’s still 3,600 streams for £120 a year. Which would have seemed ridiculous in the CD or even pub jukebox era.

If my maths are right, that would be 3.33p per stream. Streaming services could keep the 0.33 for their trouble and any money from people who don’t listen to all 300 credits a month. And the artist/label would get 1.5p and the songwriters/publisher 1.5p.

That still feels like a pittance given how much we all value music but it’s a start, no?

FYI - this was roughly the suggested royalty rate per stream when we closed our podcast back in 2006. Similar, if memory serves, to what you would get minimum per track for a free covermount CD with 20 tracks on it.

1 Like
#211

https://interdependence.fm/episodes/justice-at-spotify-with-the-union-of-musicians-and-allied-workers

#212

So Spotify has endless money not just for Joe Rogan but for Harry & Meghan, just no money for musicians. Should just become a podcast/talk radio platform and be done with it.

#213

More reasons to avoid Spotify.

They do seem to be making a claim for most evil of all streaming services which is quite something when you are up against Amazon et al.

What this article doesn’t mention is that Spotify is, I believe, the only streaming platform that sells the data it collects on you to other companies rather than just for targeting advertising and informing recommendations. So all this additional data about users will be being harvested for all sorts of stuff we aren’t aware of.

1 Like
#214

So soundcloud are making a big thing about switching up their royalty model

Sounds like a good thing. Although is it a service in the same way as the others? I thought it was more for uploading mixes and similar.

#215

Presume this is SoundCloud Go? I think that is what it is called - their streaming subscription model. I’m kind of amazed it still exists, they seemed to make an absolute hash of launching it. Think the catalogue is pretty incomplete compared to other services.

If Bandcamp aren’t going to do it the time must be right for someone to launch streaming that works better for artists but I guess they are at the whim of the majors and can’t see SoundCloud filling that gap tbh.

Edit - I still can’t get my head round the fact that artists aren’t actually paid for what actually gets played.

1 Like
#216

I’m assuming some of you have been following the DCMS enquiry into streaming.

This team are collecting data. If you have 10 mins today / this weekend, share yours.

#217

I mean, i’m a very low level artist but i’m 100% in this camp.

Anything is better. Go and give me 50p on bandcamp, or just outright theft. I don’t care. Just not spotify.

1 Like
#218

Yeah I think the thing for most mid to low level artists is that the sums from Spotify are so small that it’s sort of… not even worth it. It’s literally taking-the-piss money.

#219

This Tweet is obviously getting a lot of negative attention!

Those are tiny numbers being promoted as great. Whoops.

Side point of course: I would be interested in some kind of comparison to the 80s and then the 90s as to the money side. As in it’s always seemed like getting a significant amount out of the industry from record sales was hard except for a few specific bands. I don’t know however what the numbers were on bands making a reasonable return from their music then vs now and I don’t know how you’d even work out that value.

Also tricky because it feels like now live music is really being skimmed a lot from bands in a way I’m not sure it was back then. But I seem to recall Blur claiming in the pre-Parklife days touring Japan was one of the ways they actually made any money at all, that it was specific small markets that kept them going.

#220

The one thing about spotify is it’s kind of important for older music. I feel like maybe Spotify should only exist for music over 10-20 years old or something. When I was at Uni the way anyone got to hear classic albums, like the stuff that had been big in the 60s, 70s and 80s was if your parents had it or you could tape it from the library or a mate had it. Owning a Beatles album on CD, for example, was ridiculous. In the mid-90s they were £16 RRP and they were NEVER in sales. Loads of people only owned 2CD best ofs for a bunch of classic bands because those were the only things that would get knocked down and even then it was still pricey.

I think it’s really good that pretty much any formative classic album is now available for us to listen to for free right now. Like no one should have to pay to hear Kid A now or whatever.

2 Likes