Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

djmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 425 posts

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#181

Post by BLKNSLVR »

atoav wrote: post #114
runiq wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm intrigued. What's your bandcamp page? :)

Warning — we are probably pretty niche with our noisy music, but here ya go: https://maschinkaput.bandcamp.com/

Listening on Bandcamp right now - the song 'drop'. I like some pretty out there stuff, and this is right at the outer limits, and I mean that as a compliment.

I might not "enjoy" it as one would traditionally enjoy listening to music, but I enjoy that it exists and the uniqueness of the experience it provides.

If you can handle LAMC by Tool, you can handle this.

'kabelbrand' is giving me flashbacks to Providence by King Crimson, just a bit more raw and industrial. All build-up without the instruments actually synchronising together for the payoff as per Providence.

The band name is great; apt.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#182

Post by LightHugger »

When they say demonetize, are they saying they aren't playing any ads on them or are they just not giving creators a cut of the ads? Those are very different things.

These platforms have every incentive in the world to continue monetizing them but just cut the creator out of that monetization their work earned.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#183

Post by jug »

atoav wrote: post #54
snailmailman wrote: post #11

I don’t know much about how music licensing works. But would this cause smaller musicians to decide to pull their stuff off Spotify? I listen to a lot of music on Spotify. And some of it is from smaller indie artists. Not a huge amount, but I’ve definitely listened to songs that are in that It surprises me how much of my Spotify library is no longer available. There’s at least a few dozen songs in my Spotify library…

I am in a small and new band. In 2023 we earned roughly 500 Euros via Bandcamp (digital, physical and merch) 300 Euros selling merch on gigs 2000 Euros playing gigs 20 Cents on Spotify There is no monetary reason to be on spotify, the only reason we are on there is because fans asked.

Yeah, no cash in it but I figure it's mainly to gain exposure to hopefully later on get those into the "playing gigs" / merch audience, because reach is on the other hand massive on Spotify.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#184

Post by lotsofpulp »

max_ wrote: post #144

The market is hungry for a well-done music streaming service. I don't know why there is no venture backed competitor.

Because after 18 years, Spotify’s net income looks like this:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...

And their market cap looks like this:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SPOT/spotify-techn...

And your competitors are Apple/Amazon/Alphabet. And your vendors with whom you have zero negotiating power are Universal/Warner/Sony, and their whole interest in supporting a music streaming business like Spotify is to maintain leverage against Apple/Amazon/Alphabet, so music sellers only need to keep the streaming business limping along.

There is no play here without reform to copyright laws that limit copyright to 10 years.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#185

Post by runiq »

atoav wrote: post #114
runiq wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm intrigued. What's your bandcamp page? :)

Warning — we are probably pretty niche with our noisy music, but here ya go: https://maschinkaput.bandcamp.com/

Nee, ich mag's. Danke für den Link, und Grüße nach Hamburg!

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#187

Post by jug »

tgv wrote: post #149
asdof wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wager the income from playing gigs would be substantially lower if you weren't on Spotify.

Your arguments veers close to the "for exposure" payment. People don't go to indie concerts because of a spotify track. Nor to big name concerts. And 20 cents corresponds to around 50 to 100 plays according to the numbers mentioned here.

I'm not sure what your basis is for this claim? I've most certainly discovered artists from Spotify and later on bought e.g. merch to support them. I would in a heartbeat also go on their concerts if I was given the opportunity with travel distance, vacation plans etc.

Spotify can't give you these experiences no matter how hard they try so this claim doesn't make much sense to me. A concert isn't exactly competing with streaming services or anything.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#188

Post by kmlx »

basisword wrote: post #62
ojosilva wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a side-gig musician and composer - my wife and I as a matter of fact - this is a non-issue. It's a few bucks a year, maybe $5 to $15, depending if we release some new album. It's symbolic, not even a tip, and we can't cash it until it reaches I think $60 or more iirc. Spotify is not (or barely) making money out of our work, but we otoh are "making money" by using its platform and visibility as means to reaching to…

>> we can't cash it until it reaches I think $60 or more iirc This is highly dependent on your distributor. It can be as little as $10. >> Spotify is not (or barely) making money out of our work, but we otoh are "making money" by using its platform and visibility as means to reaching to our small fan base that will finance our work through concerts. This is an odd way to look at it. Without music, Spotify doesn’t exi…

> So Spotify is making money from your music.

not really: https://www.statista.com/chart/26773/profitability-developme...

> Since the beginning of 2017, the streaming service has generated a positive net balance in eight quarters, two of them in 2021.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#189

Post by shmageggy »

iamacyborg wrote: post #77
paranoidrobot wrote: post #4

I think this is the wrong approach. If they have issues with people abusing the revenue model by publishing white noise and generating fake plays - go after that. However the 1K streams per track thing is going to negatively impact small artists who might have relatively large collections, but few over 1K annual streams. If it's a processing cost issue then make it so that payouts need to meet some reasonable minimum…

Just cancel your Spotify subscription. I did, and now use a combination of Roon and Tidal. I have a much better listening and discovery experience through Roon and artists get paid more with Tidal.

If only Tidal (or Qobuz, or...) would implement a Connect feature that allows me to control my PC desktop from mobile, then I would, but it's been on the "promised features" list for years now. It's a deal-breaker for me.

Re: Spotify demonetizes all tracks under 1k streams

#190

Post by pydry »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #97
jzzskijj wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It surprises me how much of my Spotify library is no longer available. There’s at least a few dozen songs in my Spotify library that have been taken off the platform. It shows up in the list greyed out. A lot of good songs too. This probably has more to do with publishers and licensing contracts than artists pulling their music off from platforms. Sometimes even bigger artists' albums disappear when publisher is so…

A lot of that is also bad meta data. I have a few playlists for around 10 years or so. Every so often I have to go in and hunt down greyed out tracks that are no longer there but are available in identical versions elsewhere. Publishers apparently regularly update what they have on the platform and there's a lot of duplication as well between best off albums, remastered albums, etc. And some artists, like Neil Young,…

>Spotify seems very happy to just break everybody's playlists continuously.

This is an artefact of the industry and not something they have much control over. Labels for larger artists just don't just sell global streaming rights in perpetuity. They will carve it up by region and time in order to try and maximize profit.

Post reply on HN