#21

As well as exposure – and this is the thing Spotify dangles in front of you like a carrot – is that you might, just might get on one of the really successful playlists and suddenly zoom up to a million plays a month. The chances are slim in the ambient world unless you’re Olafur fucking Arnalds or whoever, but it’s the thing that keeps many labels from just using Bandcamp.

3 Likes
#22

Strike

#23

particularly as a small artist you’re immediately making it more difficult for people to listen to you if you don’t have music on spotify when you start out. it’s the main streaming platform at the minute so despite the poor return a lot of artists feel forced to use it at least in the beginning

on the flip side if you can somehow end up being added to an official spotify playlist it can see your streams increase thousands of times over and end up being pushed to people you’d never normally be able to reach under your own steam

3 Likes
#24

This really is the nail right on the head right there.

#25

Nah this is a really good point. One of my major annoyances with Bandcamp is that the actual playback function is pretty outdated in that the only options are to play one album or play your entire collection at random. Neither is especially useful for when you’re driving or otherwise unable to manually pick what you want to listen to next.

#26

A car CD player?

#27
3 Likes
#28

Think the message thing would be overwhelming, I get stressed with too many notifications and curate what I see quite rigidly. With social media as well it’s quite easy imo to get info across to those who are actively interested, enough so to follow anyway.

I think its interesting to consider this from my perspective as a kpop fan. I have yet to purchase albums because I have got Google play music which is good, same day streaming as album/single releases but the very first place I stream is the music video on YouTube, quite often as well to help drive up views, so at home etc I’ll just play the video instead of the stream, as google play doesn’t even count in charts like spotify afaik. I support groups I like in other ways, as physical albums, no matter how pretty the packages are, are dust gatherers that are not as convenient to listen to, so I’ll pay for concert tickets, merch and premium content (for example, BTS streamed a live show for about £25 a ticket, there were ever 700k viewers so instant $$$$$, and other ppv content. Paid about $60 for their membership which came with this adorable physical set of goods, access to ticket presales, cheaper prices for ppv events etc) which I think is a really good way to support a band as its mutually beneficial in a way that physical albums aren’t (to me). Ultimately streaming services should pay fairly but I think the nature of streaming means that alternative ways of making money like how BTS for example do it is a clever way of moving forward. They are a group that exploded in popularity partly due to their label’s intelligent way of navigating and adapting to social media and new ways of consuming music and content

3 Likes
#29

I don’t think it can be ‘fixed’. It’s a completely rigged game and will stay that way.

The main problem is that the subscription model tends to push everything towards monopoly. Very few people will want to pay multiple monthly subscriptions and so by default the market winners will always be the services with the most comprehensive libraries. The barriers to entry for new streaming services are impossibly high.

Big companies who get that kind of near monopoly power will always rip off the artists because they have the power to do so and that is the inexorable logic of capitalism. One of the things I find most puzzling is when anyone expects corporations to behave differently from that. Corporations are not your friends and they have no moral compass at all. The music industry has always ripped off artists but imagine how bad it would have been if there had only been two or three record companies basically controlling the whole access to the marketplace.

Personally I’m uneasy about the whole thing, both because of the degree to which artists are being exploited and also because I don’t like the idea that I am only renting access to music conditional on the corporations continuing to allow me that access. I do use streaming when there is no option but the vast majority of my listening is on physical formats.

Obviously I recognise that I am in a fortunate position compared to others in that I can afford to buy the records I want to listen to. I would have loved the cheap access to music when I was penniless in my teens and twenties and spending every spare penny on one record a week if I was lucky. Having said that I do think that if you love music and you can afford it you spend as much as you can on physical releases, gig tickets, merchandise, Bandcamp downloads- anything that gets money to the artists you love.

Sorry, not a very hopeful or helpful post.

14 Likes
#30

This basically what I have been trying to write for the last 15 minutes. I like my music physical/paid for if not able to get physically.

3 Likes
#31

So the massive artists (Swift, BTS etc.) are always going to find ways of making a lot of money. The way they make that money is just constantly shifting so they need savvy management.

Bandcamp seems to be a really good option for artists who are essentially DIY or part time.

What about the gap in the middle? Seems like these were the sort of artists who seemed successful but in reality rarely ever got beyond paying back the record company debts. Maybe these artists are just better off using the bandcamp model even if this restricts how they can record (no abbey road sessions)?

What about YouTube? There seem to be plenty of people finding a way to make a living from having a youtube channel. Presumably musicians are doing this too? I know the pay per view will be even less than spotify but there seem to be far more opportunities for monetizing it, even just the practice of donations on live feeds seems common. Someone gifting $5 to a live feed is god knows how many thousands of streams.

#32

you can stream albums youve paid for in the bandcamp app. artists can also message their followers directly through bandcamp too. bandcamp is the best

1 Like
#33

I think the key here is that - from my pretty limited understanding I’ll admit - is that the people making money from youtube are all doing constant engagement. Live streams every day, sometimes multiple times per day. Consistently online.

When do musicians/bands then actually find the time to write and record, if they’re being expected to consistently be online engaging? If youre not constantly there in people’s faces interacting then that audience quickly drifts away to something else.

I’m not sure it’s entirely feasible to tell the truth, but then I’m fairly useless at the social side of everything, so I’m sure someone smart and tuned into that side of things will find some way of making it work - I just think it’s likely to be at the detriment of the quality of the music.

#34

It’s a nice idea, but this is also weighted more in favour of artists who has a live setup that lends itself to that sort of performance mode. There’s also the question of production values as more high end artists do this who can afford decent camera setups, studios, etc. - it just doesn’t compete to an artist with a webcam in their bedroom.

Basically as another user said upthread, all modes of making money from streaming and adjacent platforms are always going to be more beneficial to artists who already have the resources.

#35

By the way, for anyone who hasn’t read the Spotify CEO’s comments that kicked all the controversy off, this is a nice quick summary:

#36

Of course. Thanks.

Makes my head spin all this stuff but I do find it fascinating if only because I love music and want to support artists as best I can. At the moment for me that just means buying the records really.

1 Like
#37

Or, as Mark Eitzel summarised it on Twitter: ‘dance, monkey, dance!’

1 Like
#38

I can see how there may end up being a younger generation using youtube to get their music out though who may just use it in a completely different way. But producing something artistic is such a different process compared to most youtube ‘content’ I can see this seems unlikely.

#39

it seems a ridiculous comparison to make but 65daysofstatic did a year of releasing an experimental EP each month last year, lots of out takes and weird ideas that didnt turn into songs or whatever, and released them through a subscription via bandcamp. i think they missed a trick by releasing their album halfway through rather than at the end of the year coz it got lost a bit but it shows that theres different ways of making bank whether youre an enormo-pop band or glitchy noise men

1 Like
#40

dont hate me guys, but I have some sympathy for spotify

from what I have read 70% of Spotify’s money goes to the music owners (I guess how much the artist gets to see depends on their record label contracts). While it would be good if that percentage was higher it doesnt seem that bad to me, they could increase it a bit but to increase it substantially they would have to increase the subscription costs. that might be a good idea but think there is a trade off, the more it costs the less people would use it (possibly piracy would return).

Just think the fact that artists with a decent following find it hard to make a living nowadays is inextricably linked to there being a lot more music being made, more listened to, by a much greater variety of artists than under the old system where music was tied to a physical format most people could only afford occasionally, with the music press gatekeepers giving exposure to relatively few lucky bands. a band nowadays who has a rose tinted view of the past, where they might have made more should also consider that in the past they wouldn’t have been one of the lucky ones that made it in that more competitive landscape. just rarely see acknowledgement in this debate that if bands were remunerated in the same way as the past would inevitably mean less bands getting an audience, unless people were willing to spend alot more than they did back then to keep up with their broader listening.

i’m not completely fatalistic, would be good if there was a fairer model where all profits go to artists (always wondered why some big indie labels haven’t teamed up for there own streaming service) and people who can afford it should do more to support the acts they enjoy beyond the basic streaming subscription. just don’t think there is a magic solution where people can enjoy the abundance of music (and artists can find their audience) and for artists to be able to make the same kind of living as similar acts of the past

10 Likes