Spotify
- Thread starter JDOD
- Start date
jimistone
long standing member
I have spotify. I've had it for years. I love it. It will stream pretty well even when you barely have a signal. Also, you can save songs or entire album you like and play them offline. the search feature is really good too. I like being able to type in an artists name and then click on "albums" and it brings up every album with little icons of the album cover. click on the album cover icon and it opens up and all the songs are there in the correct order. It's amazing how fast a brand new album appears on spotify. Pretty much as soon as you hear a group came out with a new record it's on there. That's $9.99 a month. I think it's an unbeatable deal!
my 2 cents.
my 2 cents.
robgreen
no face
The service is great - almost every album you could ask for on there. The free version has ads and reduced bitrate compared with the paid for version. If you listen on a desktop, you get ads scattered around between songs, but on a tablet there's one bigger ad upon startup and then it's ad free for the next 30 minutes.
I think it is a pretty crappy deal for artists, so I tend to use it as a means of finding whether I like a record, and if I do then I buy a physical copy.
This article's a good read on payments by means of sale/stream: How much do musicians really make from Spotify, iTunes and YouTube? | Technology | The Guardian
I think it is a pretty crappy deal for artists, so I tend to use it as a means of finding whether I like a record, and if I do then I buy a physical copy.
This article's a good read on payments by means of sale/stream: How much do musicians really make from Spotify, iTunes and YouTube? | Technology | The Guardian
Steenamaroo
...
Yup.
Super. Just works.
It's 2016. Your groceries are probably an unethical shit deal.
mjbphotos
Moderator
I use the free version. Sometimes the ads pop up every couple of songs, sometimes, you can play 10+ songs with no ads.
Like every other streaming revenue it sucks - the payoff to the artist is $0.003xxx per stream - yeah, so 1000 streams gets you $3 and change, 100,000 streams (that's a LOT) $300. Less whatever your service (CD Baby, Tunecore, etc) takes for their cut.
Like every other streaming revenue it sucks - the payoff to the artist is $0.003xxx per stream - yeah, so 1000 streams gets you $3 and change, 100,000 streams (that's a LOT) $300. Less whatever your service (CD Baby, Tunecore, etc) takes for their cut.
Steenamaroo
...
Nah, fair enough man.
I saw spotify stats a long time ago and immediately stopped caring, looking at it from the artist side.
If I earned one penny from spotify (literally) I'd probably have 'made it' from other sources. lol.
Funny though, reading articles and opinions about it and they often make mention of 'free' listening alternatives like Radio, youtube and piracy.
Radio may be free to listen, but it can pay damn well. That hasn't really changed, I don't think.
Not strictly relevant but I just thought it was interesting.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
Just had a look, the album for the band I was playing in last year is on there. I was out with the singer last night; she mentioned that she's made next to fuck all from it and is looking for a new manager, but I didn't think to ask her what she gets from streaming.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Very True.
I'm sure for the bulk of folks here...it's a big "don't care"...but that's the thing, the more people that don't care, the more it devalues music.
Sure...you hearing about someone like Taylor Swift complaining the Spotify isn't giving her a large enough cut, may sound like a lot like some rich girl crying about a few bucks...but again, the more these streaming companies devalue artist royalties...the less value music will have as a whole down the road. They are making a fortune, and eventually the small artists will be paying them just to get some play.
It's a pretty fucked up situation...the big streaming giants are winning control of music royalties, and they are cutting deals that exclude or minimize the value of the artist who actually created the music. It's more corporate now than it ever was when the Record companies ran the whole distro thing.
Funny how the Internet that was supposed to liberate artists and provide inexpensive distro...is now working against the artists.
Steenamaroo
...
I admit it's not like I've studied this thing but I never saw it as that big a deal.
I've read weak defences claiming that piracy has always been a thing so at least artists are getting paid something if spotify is used as an alternative.
Either way, the whole thing is bound to change a lot in the coming years. It's still a relatively new deal.
I understand radio royalties being much bigger because a license paying company is playing the same song to thousands or millions of people.
If you did the maths to get a figure suitable for one listener, I guess spotify or whoever are probably close to being on the money.
The difference, in my opinion, is that Spotify can be an alternative to buying records....That's where it gets messed up.
I've read weak defences claiming that piracy has always been a thing so at least artists are getting paid something if spotify is used as an alternative.
Either way, the whole thing is bound to change a lot in the coming years. It's still a relatively new deal.
I understand radio royalties being much bigger because a license paying company is playing the same song to thousands or millions of people.
If you did the maths to get a figure suitable for one listener, I guess spotify or whoever are probably close to being on the money.
The difference, in my opinion, is that Spotify can be an alternative to buying records....That's where it gets messed up.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
I agree with you Miro (did you see the purple tracksuit picture). Its really sad - I didn't think Taylor Swift and Thom Yorke were whinging though. It seemed like a valid complaint to me and highlighted the plight of vast majority of artists.
I suppose, like Lemmy said, a band has to work. A lot of bands don't want to do that anymore. I know my singer doesn't, she wants her manager to sort her out with good gigs supporting big acts and not just play any gig. I do get the impression that many bands don't put the work in these days and expect that once they get an album out they'll immediately be successful. That doesn't mean that the streaming payment system isn't total bollocks but maybe online distribution has also made bands lazier.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
This being the case, in future music will only be produced by recording artists for free or by artists that are prepared to work their fucking arses off playing live continually.
robgreen
no face
Based on the article I linked above, the artist is estimated to receive $0.001128 per stream. Therefore it takes 886 streams to earn $1.
So 1,000,000 streams only equates to a pretty measly $1100.
and looking at Spotify's stats, Drake was the most streamed artist last year so probably netted over $2m for his 1.8bn streams. I'm guessing he's one of very few winners though.
Don't blame streaming. Blame the publishing and distribution companies that sell the rights to these streaming services. And also blame the idiot bands that happily sign those moronic 360 deals that give away all of their power for years and years. The streamers are the least of the villains.
Steenamaroo
...
Alright, I exaggerated but the point's there. It's such an insignificant amount compared to other income sources.
If you're earning nothing anywhere you're not going to care about spotify's percentage of a penny per stream and if you are earning money in the industry, you're probably still not going to care relative to your other income.
As with anything there'll be exceptions.
Put it this way. You could make a grand on radio play relatively easily. Hell, you could make it doing ten pub gigs.
Easier than pulling 886,000 streams out of your ass.
andrushkiwt
Well-known member
That's been in my car's CD player for over 2 years. I'm a huge fan. This is the year he came out in the wheelchair and fell over at the mic to start the show. It was wicked. One of their most famous performances. You might like the "With the Lights Out" box set, if you're a big Nirvana fan. Lots of early demos and rare recordings...though quality is severely raw due to the crap they recorded it on.
er, sorry for the off-topic
robgreen
no face
Hey Steen, my post wasn’t intended to correct anything you’d said, just to add to the discussion with some figures of what these streams are worth.
Looking at the link, you earn roughly the same as a signed artist from royalties for selling 457 CDs as you do those 1,000,000 spotify streams. I appreciate that if you’re getting 1m streams then Spotify aint going to be your only income revenue, I just find the topic of how you make music pay in this age pretty interesting.
All reminds me of something I once read from Billy Bragg where he said that you could go on his website and download his latest album for free or alternatively buy one of his t-shirts for a tenner – made him wonder what business he was really in.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
That's been in my car's CD player for over 2 years. I'm a huge fan. This is the year he came out in the wheelchair and fell over at the mic to start the show. It was wicked. One of their most famous performances. You might like the "With the Lights Out" box set, if you're a big Nirvana fan. Lots of early demos and rare recordings...though quality is severely raw due to the crap they recorded it on.
er, sorry for the off-topic
I've got it mate (yeah, I bought a "hard copy". OK, some of the stuff on there is really shit quality and was obviously never meant for release. Some of it is fucking gold though. Amazing songwriter, seriously under-rated guitar player.
Steenamaroo
...
Cool man. You just made me realise I'd exaggerated it a good bit.LOL! Nice. It is kinda fucked up, huh?