this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
751 points (98.7% liked)

World News

32079 readers
792 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 216 points 10 months ago (2 children)

“Spotify already pays nearly 70% of every dollar it generates from music to the record labels and publishers

Sounds like the issue might be with the record labels...

[–] Matte@feddit.it 105 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I’m a small label owner and I guarantee you that it’s a red herring. they set the price of the service, and you can either upload your music on spotify, or not upload it.

compared to the market before digital platforms, where YOU set the price according to several factors, Spotify is the judge and the jury. they choose what the subscription cost is. they choose what your music is worth. they choose the amount of payout you’re gonna get. this is completely backwards! WE should be the ones, labels and artists, to tell spotify what our cost is, and THEY should be the ones setting their subscriptions on the according price for them to be able to cover all their running costs.

but they put themselves in the dominating position on the market, and contributed to the destruction of the physical market. we got left with no choice but to upload our music on their service and eat shit.

we passed from earning thousands of euro per year in physical and digital sales, to getting 100€ every three months for royalties on spotify. this is unsustainable whatever the way you look at it.

they’re the pirates, and ruined the market much more than what pirate bay ever did.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 99 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All of these complaints are nearly identical to the complaints about major labels prior to streaming. It's almost like the core issue is still the same, but the scapegoat is changing.

[–] Matte@feddit.it 52 points 10 months ago

ah, you got to the main issue of the question. the problem is not different from before, and Spotify has just been used as a tool from the majors. if you read a comment below, I wrote that it’s true that Spotify pays their 70% to the artists… but they don’t tell how that money is redistributed. what we earn as independent is absolutely not the same of what a Warner or Sony artist earn. Spotify made under-the-table agreements with the majors in order to grab their catalogue and avoid getting shut off.

the majors saw spotify as a great tool to get themselves out of the hole they dug themselves into during the post 2000s, and kept doing their same shady kind of business.

so well spotted, you’re absolutely right.

[–] DV8@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The physical market was long gone before Spotify happened, don't make your legitimate complaints look silly by blaming Spotify for it. The music industry simply had no good answer to deal with digital media.

Spotify did seem to force their hand and some artists improved and adapted. And it's never had a true monopoly with many different services coexesting and competing with it.

[–] Matte@feddit.it 14 points 10 months ago

sure thing, I’m not saying it’s not true. but we had two models to choose from: the bandcamp model, which is a marketplace where the artist can set their own price, the spotify model, where the distributor sets the price, and an in-between that was itunes, where the artist would suggest the price and the distributor could modify it.

for some reason we went to the nuclear solution, and chose the terrible spotify business model, where three companies make money while killing everybody else.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm curious if you know how this works for other streaming services?

Presumably there's a market rate that users are currently willing to pay and as such an increase of pay from Spotify to artists would mean they need to increase the fee to their users. This would make them less competitive and possibly lose subscriptions.

I've already jumped ship from Spotify over to YouTube music for example because in my country it was a better deal.

[–] Matte@feddit.it 18 points 10 months ago

of course it’s a better deal, Youtube Music barely pays anything. it’s even worse than Spotify, and most of their streamings come for free, which is enraging to say the least.

anyways they have two paths: they either suck the costs in and increase the subscriptions (and lose customers in the meanwhile, so they’ll earn less in order to give more money to the small artists) or they cut the share they’re giving to the majors, which is the biggest percentage of the pie. but majors will simply boycott spotify and create their own platform, just as it happened with netflix.

[–] Caesium@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

what do you recommend a listener do to support the artists they love? I assume buying the music directly instead of streaming is the best, but I want to do what I can as a consumer

[–] Matte@feddit.it 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

of course a direct purchase from bandcamp, either an album or a shirt/merchandise is the best. avoid amazon at all costs. purchasing from itunes is decent. if you want to stream, pay for an account on tidal, it’s the one that pays best of all the streaming services. the very worst is spotify and right under spotify youtube/youtube music. it’s better if you just grab the album from piratebay at that point, since youtube is the only one making money.

[–] yojimbo@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am a Spotify user and I feel bad. Regarding Tidal - does it make any difference for you whether I am using the "Hifi" or "Hifi Plus" ? TY!

[–] Matte@feddit.it 5 points 10 months ago

I’m not sure if that changes anything. by logic I’d say if you pay more, more money will get redistributed but I can’t say for sure. what I can say is that I see my payouts, and Tidal is the one with the highest payout rate per streaming.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I work for a label and need to press that no artist would get actually big without their label. Nit because the artist isn't good, but because if you can't get deals with radio stations, deals with streaming services to get on curated playlists, interviews with Graham Norton/other shows, nomination/performances at award shows, promotions on tick tok, commercial/movie soundtrack deals, world tours, tradional advertising. Etc etc. Then you're never going to be making good money in the industry.

And music is infamously not very lucrative in terms of entertainment. Film, TV and video games companies are actually ordered of magnitude more profitable.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 20 points 10 months ago

It’s clear that labels are acting as gatekeepers, but are they productive gatekeepers? Or just skimming off of the top — that is, rent seeking, profiting even when they provide little value themselves. It seems like there’s a lot of the latter going on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] transientpunk@sh.itjust.works 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well that's damning

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago (5 children)

This is at least the second time Spotify has refused to be decent.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CCL@links.hackliberty.org 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

more reasons to join Funkwhale

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fridgeratr@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Guess I should finally try Tidal...

[–] netchami@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Or just stop giving these shitty corporations money altogether and start pirating.

Take a look at these amazing guides:

https://ripped.guide/Audio/Music/

https://rentry.org/firehawk52

And join !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Personally, I use deemix with Deezer Premium ARLs to download my Music in full 320kbps. Works like a dream. You can accomplish the same thing on Android with Murglar. This section of the Firehawk52 guide explains it pretty well.

[–] Visstix@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Not sure how that solves paying the artists a fair share.

[–] qwazpoi@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago

It kinda does in a way. A Harvard study from 2004 showed that most artists actually get a profit from piracy (when they broke it down pretty much all but the 25% most popular artists sold more records and had more concert attendance).

Basically most legitimate music streaming services have ways of screwing over artists. Most services use a pro rata model that will screw over most artists.

As it stands for right now one of the biggest things hurting artists are the streaming services.

Things that help are services switching over to a fan centric model (SoundCloud is the only service I know of that has done this and I haven't actually seen too much info on how it's actually affected artists) and organizations like MAC and ARA that can affect policies and regulations in the music industry.

[–] netchami@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Media corporations won't solve that either. They will simply take your money and put it in their pockets while pretending that they care about artists.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 3 points 10 months ago

Go see them to support them. That's the only way most bands make their money anyway. I'm friends with a member of a successful bluegrass band and they get just about zip from streaming and just about all their money from merch and ticket sales.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] only0218@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Tidal has some pseudo quality (MQA) which they claim to better than lossless but isn't at all and just costs more. If you want a streaming service, maybe take a look at something like qubuz where you can buy the tracks to download drm free. Might also wanna take a look at Bandcamp.

[–] Ghostwurm@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Is this actually that Spotify doesn't want to have to qualify value? Remuneration equal across regions? Oof being equitable could get expensive!

[–] Ghostwurm@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is this actually that Spotify doesn't want to have to qualify value?

[–] Auzy@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago

They'd rather pay 200 mil to people like Joe Rogan. It doesn't matter how you look at that deal, he's not worth that much, and there would be 0% chance of getting that money back (thats a lot of additional subscriptions)

load more comments
view more: next ›