31–40 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But YouTube, at least the popular video platform, is not meant for publishing songs and is doesn't claim that either. Spotify's sole business is dependent on music and claims to be benefit artists.
But many people use YouTube as their music jukebox. Why is it that Google should pay significantly less for this?
How does this ($4990) compare to youtube's 1M views? Perhaps $500?
People still seem to be stuck quantifying the value of music (sales, streams, etc) against a time when there was less saturation and the actual cost of producing, marketing and distributing music was much higher.
Well yes, because that was a time when musicians could earn a living. It's legitimate to question the current situation.
People still seem to be stuck quantifying the value of music (sales, streams, etc) against a time when there was less saturation and the actual cost of producing, marketing and distributing music was much higher.
Well yes, because that was a time when musicians could earn a living. It's legitimate to question the current situation.
I’m not saying this is good, but it’s the way things have always been. There was never some “good, honest living” to be made for anyone who isn’t a household name.
How does Tidal compare in terms of paying artists
https://blog.songtrust.com/the-guide-to-music-streaming-plat...
Tidal Launched: 2014; relaunched in 2015 after an acquisition by Jay-Z in 2015.
Subscribers: Estimated 3 million subscribers in 52 countries Market Share: N/A
Payout: $0.01284 per stream
Assuming that a consumer spent the money from a Spotify subscription on CDs instead that would, in Denmark, be around 24 CDs in a three year period. When you look at it that way, I can't really see how artists expect to make any real profit of Spotify, the money simply isn't there.
Streaming services allow consumers to listen to vastly more music that they ever did before, and from a larger number of artists, but at a lower price, so I can't see why people are surprised that Spotify isn't making them money.
What would be interesting to see is: How many time would a fan need to play songs from one artist to make the artist the same amount of money as the sale of a CD. I believe that an artist only makes around $0.5 from the sale of a CD, the rest goes to the label, promotion and so on. So I would assume that as long as each user plays a song around 100 times, the net result would be the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is filled with talented people not using their talents in their job. Why do you assume that musicians in particular must be the ones to make a living from their talent ?
Maybe it's a broader proble with society.
Well, one way to conceptualize human needs is maslow's hierarchy. the final, LOWEST priority need is self-fulfillment. so there are many more pressing problems before that to solve.
but:
It says nowhere that self-fulfillment must be in your job.
Who says that being a successful musician is "the" useful trait to develop ? reading about successful musicians, and knowing one, they don't seem particularly psychologically healthy. Same goes for probably many other talents.
And who says the "self" is the key thing to develop anyway ? if you ask spiritual people, peak human development looks quite different.
I feel like it's a false analogy to compare Spotify Streams to CD sales. For a fairer comparison, you should measure against something more ephemeral. The biggest radio channels in the US have a few million listeners each. Let's say your record does ok, and gets airtime on a few second-tier radio stations. For easy math, let's do 20 plays * 50,000 listeners per play. This also gives you a total of one million listens…
I somehow keep being fascinated by people think they're ripped off. I mean sure, Spotify is making a decent buck out of it, but it's not like the artists are doing it for free. There's much more to the whole process. Firs to earn something per play there need to be ads that finance it. Then imagine the technical hurdle and cost to host such a platform (ie Spotify cut) and then you actually being worth a damn as an ar…
Many record companies, in their own financial interest, reduced the royalty cost for streams with Spotify in exchange for revenue shares.
I would feel pretty ripped off if I made a big, delicious cake, and as a reward I get one tiny slice while I had to watch everyone else eat the rest. Maybe not if making cakes is just a small hobby for me, but definitely so if it's my career.
Arguably $5000 isn't much for three years and 1 million plays, but I'm also not sure what they where expecting. I believe the issue is that Spotify charges customers per month, while artists are paid by play, so the more Spotifys customers use the service, the less they can afford to pay for each play. Assuming that a consumer spent the money from a Spotify subscription on CDs instead that would, in Denmark, be aroun…