When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.

By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.

193 points

Gotta love all my friends who are really into music who happily use Spotify and don’t give a shit it is a weapon of class warfare being used on musicians disguised as a music player!

I basically lost all my drive to make something of my love of creating music seeing how little anyone in my society actually values music or musicians in terms of material support and reward, it is honestly pretty scary how broken music has become.

permalink
report
reply
73 points

I really wish there was a better alternative to push my friends to. I do use Bandcamp, so at least I know more of my $$$ are going to the artists and I can take the music with me, but I’m not sure about the platform long-term.

permalink
report
parent
reply
85 points
*

As a musician and composer it really took the life out of my identity as a composer seeing an alternative to bandcamp never really form and then one day waking up to it bought by Epic.

I didn’t cry that day, but I might as well have, it made me extraordinarily sad to see that headline and I imagine there are actually countless talented musicians out there who will never actuate on their creative vision because the environment for music production is at this point, downright hostile towards artists and musicians considering the amount of work music production is.

It takes an obscene amount of work to take a song from something that has promise to being as polished as listeners demand nowadays, and listeners won’t even give your song a chance on actual speakers. You have to twist and warp your music so it sounds good on essentially monophonic phone speakers with shitty frequency coverage or otherwise nobody will give it a try on speakers for actually listening to music. Doesn’t matter though, nobody is going to actually support you for the art you make.

🙃

It seems like https://resonate.coop/ is still around tho which seems like a cool idea (a coop owned streaming service where listeners can stream-to-own a song).

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Not sure if this is exactly good news, but Epic Games doesn’t own it anymore, it was sold to Songtradr.

permalink
report
parent
reply

How about https://qobuz.com ? I’ve bought some flac files from them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It seems that ampwall.com may come sometime as an alternative to Bandcamp? Time will tell…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I use Napster. I chose it way back when Spotify paid for the Rogan podcast, from a list of platforms that pay artists more. I’m not sure if that’s true any longer, but look it up! I’ve been really happy with their service. (And it’s really full circle for me, since I used their original service decades ago.)

ETA I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this site, but it says Napster is still one of the top-paying platforms.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

How does this compare to Tidal?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I just downloaded Bandcamp, and after searching for my favorite artists, almost none are on the platform aside from 1-2. Did a search on like 20-25. This is why I use Spotify. Maybe if artists started acknowledging Bandcamp as a legitimate alternative to Spotify, then of course I’d listen there. But right now most stuff by my favorite bands are either covers or remixes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Chicken and the egg, be the change you want to be, but also I am not absolutist about using Spotify.

I just think Spotify and other streaming services are vehicles of class warfare against musicians that also happen to play music. I understand if you like the playing music part!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Is Pandora any better than Spotify at paying artists?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Qobuz

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Soon we’ll have AI music generators and most people will be perfectly happy to only ever listen to what those churn out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

I mean, we’ll see.

Maybe.

Maybe we will just look back at the period that is rapidly coming to a close as a golden era of music (and video games for that matter) where the tools became sophisticated, affordable and distributed for music production but venture capital hadn’t yet destroyed any last vestiges of the monetary value of musician’s labor (audio engineer’s included) in recording contexts.

Of course, I am sure Spotify and other streaming services are coming around to the value of recorded music being unsustainably low, I mean everybody knows it deep down right? That is why they are going to continue to raise their prices. From the perspective of Spotify, the artists that actually do the work of making Spotify a valuable company aren’t in principle excluded from their share of the pie when the line starts to go back up and the company has a chance to reverse some of the belt tightening and sacrifices everybody had to make to keep the lights on… but every single one of these vapid losers believes deep down in their bones that the rules of the game say that it isn’t the responsibility of shareholders or upper management of Spotify to just hand the musicians their fare share of the increasing profits, or even alert them to the fact that profits are in fact increasing in the first place. Musicians are not the customers nor the shareholders of Spotify, they are the commodified, interchangeable contractors that aren’t much different than the day laborers who hang out outside of most Home Depots in the US looking for handyman work.

This is like when the English saw that the only crop Irish peasants could afford to grow on the side for subsistence farming to feed their families, potatoes, were getting destroyed by a potato blight, and decided that it would send the wrong message to let those Irish peasants have any of the rest of the crops that Irish farmers were growing to sell to foreign markets to simply pay the English rent for their farmscrops that were not significantly impacted by the potato blight because it would make the Irish reliant on handouts and encourage a problematic tendency towards apathy and entitlement stubbornly latent in the Irish population.

🔥 Burn 🔥 It 🔥 Down 🔥
(with love)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
25 points

All the streamers suck; plus Spotify definitely sucks the most and it has the most subscribers. So I do my best to support artists I love by buying their albums in some physical form (vinyl if possible because it encourages active listening), t-shirts when I need a t-shirt, fan clubs, etc. It’s all I can think to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

It’s all I can think to do.

I think you thought of a lot of good things to do!

I don’t mean to be overly cynical about people, this is a problem of systems and normalization of things that shouldn’t be normalized primarily, the people are mainly just trying to survive.

sigh

permalink
report
parent
reply

I say this a lot to people on Lemmy, but everyone here (including you) is honestly so much nicer and more emotionally intelligent than people on other places on the internet

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The thing is, you’re buying from their record labels, not directly from artists. And then it depends on their contract how much they actually get. But they are still getting more from it, I guess.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It helps when the band runs their own label.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Walk me through this.

Before Spotify, I’d buy a record (physical or digital) and listen to that. I pay the artist once. After Spotify, I buy a record and listen to it on Spotify. I pay the artist the normal record price and there’s a long tail from stream payouts (unless they don’t reach the payout threshold).

Before Spotify, if someone heard a song and didn’t buy the record, they didn’t pay the artist. After Spotify, if they still don’t buy a record, the artist now earns from stream payouts.

Finally, before Spotify, if someone bought a record but stopped buying after Spotify, the artist loses that record purchase. This is definitely bad. Was Spotify the real reason? Would something other than Spotify have pulled them away? What levels of fame are materially affected by this?

Do artists have to pay to be on Spotify? Is that the issue?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

the artist now earns from stream payouts.

Do artists have to pay to be on Spotify? Is that the issue?

The issue is that artists don’t make any actual money on Spotify, they are being forced to put their music on Spotify because that is where you have to put your stuff if you want to be a successful recording musician.

Meanwhile a couple of years ago the Spotify ceo said in defense of completely destroying any semblance of money making from recording music:

“There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough,” said Ek.

https://www.reddit.com/r/musicmarketing/comments/mlemlh/why_youre_9998_likely_to_never_make_real_money/

Streaming is great, but the structural evisceration of musicians and the value of labor in composing and producing is basically negative at this point given the huge amount of time that must go into a track to get it 100% there and ready for listeners.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The thread you linked says what I said.

I’ve been doing DIY music since I was a kid. The vast majority of bands are never going to make any money ever. Spotify didn’t change that. Streaming didn’t cause that. The reality of every kid with a guitar thinking music is about making money not having fun is what did that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

How much do they really care? I’m not usually a quality snob, especially since I frequently use gear of varying quality making it moot, but wouldn’t most people who are really into music at least consider the competition that offers higher quality files at similar if not the same price?

Or are they the type to only have local FLAC with their DAC? Because I like my collection but streaming is still worth the convenience for jumping into a new album.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Edit: I didn’t really make it clear, my interest in services like Bandcamp wasn’t higher quality music, it was that it was run by at least a relatively benign company that seemed to treat artists like actual human beings who artistic labor was inherently valuable. I would buy craft beer/cider/meader even if Budweiser or Coors Light was actually better quality beer, what I care about at the end of the day is my money going to someone or something good

I have spent a lotttt of time messing around with music production and learning what is pseudo-science (a whole fuckton of it) and what is real science. In all of the ABx testing I have done, read about, and seen demonstrated in person myself a quality MP3 with a decent bitrate encoding (idk 128kps or so?) using a decent algorithm and hell even a sampling rate of 41khz will produce an audio recording that when played back on a hifi audio system and level matched (EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, it is well known in mastering and mixing that a louder mix always sounds better at first glance) is indistinguishable from the source .wav file to the human ear (I don’t care how super human you claim your ear is).

People make this silly mistake of thinking that digitization introduces these sharp staircase edges into audio waveforms, which is actually kind of a hilarious misconception (which I completely understand, not trying to insult people’s intelligence) because the entire idea of converting a waveform (an analog non-bandwith limited phenomena) into a bandwidth-limited digital waveform is utterly reliant on the idea that the analog reproduction of a digital square wave/stair step function with a voicecoil and diaphragm, physical hardware components with shape, size and crucially mass, must necessarily create a smooth analog waveform because physical hardware components have mass and momentum, they aren’t theoretical ideas. It is better to think of a bandwith limited digital waveform as a series of movement commands for an RTS unit in Starcraft 2. The unit will naturally path between discrete points in a way that creates fluid movement, fundamentally it wouldn’t make any sense for the unit to just teleport directly to where you click and then teleport directly to where you click next etc…

I mean let us consider Vinyl records for a second, maybe you like most people have a vague perception they are kind of a hifi audio thing for people that reallllllly care about audio quality and don’t want to listen to chopped up and compressed digital audio files using a gasp consumer DAC that came stock in their laptop.

This quote from an old reddit thread discussing how CDs actually have far better signal-to-noise ratio fidelity than Vinyls (and really all decent quality digital audio files) about sums it up.

As for quantitative audio quality differences between the two mediums, the CD is superior. CDs operate at a sampling rate of 44.1kHz. These are discrete points, versus the continuous signal produced by a physical vinyl groove. However, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem explains why a 44.1kHz sampling rate is sufficient for completely reproducing frequencies up to 44.1 / 2 or 22.05 kHz (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem ). True response will actually be lower than 22.05 kHz due to the various anti-aliasing filters involved in the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion process to prevent frequencies above 22.05 kHz from aliasing down into the audible range (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing#Folding ).

Furthermore, the CD is recorded with 16 bits of resolution, results in an output with 65,536 discrete voltage ‘steps’ on the output. This does introduce some quantization noise, because the real signal is ‘rounded’ up or down to the nearest of the 65,536 steps. This is another area where some people claim vinyl is superior due to the lack of quantization of the output. But in practice, vinyl only has 9-10 bits of resolution (IIRC) due to manufacturing tolerances. To achieve around 16 bits of resolution, the tolerance of production for the groove would have to be on the order of 1/65,536 or ~0.001%. That’s not going to happen on those tiny grooves. Also, you have to consider the non-zero inertia of the physical pick-up moving across those tracks, which will introduce a separate set of distortions as it moves around.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ic9f0/do_vinyls_really_have_a_better_audio_quality_than/

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Believe I’ve gone down a similar path. I agree, but I assumed the layman dedicated music fan would at least be curious.

And on another note we need more discussion music and audio production around Lemmy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
-6 points

In my experience those kinds of people are Ice Spice fans.

Who think that SSSniperwolf arriving at another person’s house live on Insta and doxxing them during a manic episode is ‘slay’.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Wut

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

There’d a lot to unpack here

permalink
report
parent
reply
103 points

Please, people, for the love of the gods, stop using Spotify. There are numerous other services that are so much better value for your money and don’t treat artists (as much) like trash.

And that being said, try to support your beloved artists directly as much as you can. Buying digital downloads or physical media will give them more money than a lifetime of streaming ever would. Plus you get to keep the higher-quality music even if the platform or artist goes tits-up.

permalink
report
reply
67 points

Could you give me some examples of alternative services? I’m paying spotify right now, but i’ll love to ditch it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
64 points

Sure, although keep in mind this will vary by region due to licensing issues.

Deezer is probably Spotify’s best direct competitor. They are priced equally (depending on region) and now offer high-res streaming as default instead of a paid extra. They’ve been expanding with new features such as lyrics, collab playlists, song identification, and they recently improved their recommendation system. They also offer a discount if you buy subs yearly instead of monthly so you can save if you like the platform.

Apple Music is also an option now that Apple has put in some work to make the platform easier to use on non-Apple devices such as the recently added Windows app. It’s not as feature-rich as Deezer but if you don’t use those added features anyway then it is an option. I personally would phrase it as “has less bloat”. If you own any Apple devices already then it will have tighter integration with them.

Tidal is the old favourite of audiophiles and music appreciators. They have been expanding their platform with new features and music and, somewhat recently, have also lowered their prices. High-res streaming is now included in the base sub tier. All of these alternatives pay artists more than Spotify but Tidal has one of the best artist payouts.

Qobuz is similar to Tidal and is a premium platform with a focus on quality. They are a newer service and are still expanding their regions, so I don’t have personal experience with them as they only recently opened up to my country. Their price and feature set looks competitive, though, and their UI does look slick. They also have better artist payouts.

Amazon Music apparently has better payouts for artists but Amazon is a shit company so I’ve never looked into them further. I’ll include YouTube Music here as well which has shitty payouts and is a shitty company.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points
*

Amazon Music

I invested heavily in the Amazon Music ecosystem, I bought hundreds of albums on there, and the platform is now very nearly unusuable. I cannot even listen to the songs that I paid for without also having to listen to ads. And the Android app now hides the downloads in some hidden folder so I can’t even download them and listen to them on another player. It makes me furious.

I’ve actually gone back to CDs, if you can believe it. It’s kind of nice sometimes, especially for full album plays, but I do miss a nice big playlist of my favorite songs from all artists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Apple Music also has Dolby atmos and much higher quality audio files compared to Spotify.

The only thing Spotify has on everyone is excellent playlists. I just use SongShift to copy the playlists over.

Tidal is okay but I prefer Apple Music since it has a better UI, cheaper price and is more user friendly for my non-audiophile family members.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Just looked into these. It doesn’t look like any of these have official Linux apps :(

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

None of these have good app support compared to Spotify, sadly. Not supported by my car, nor my Linux desktop, or home speakers.

Oh and Deezer pays even less to artists than Spotify.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The interesting thing about Tidal is that is was originally owned by artists (Jay-Z, Beyoncé; Kanye West; Madonna; Jason Aldean; Alicia Keys; Arcade Fire; Coldplay’s Chris Martin; Rihanna; and deadmau5) Who have since sold off a majority share to Block, while Jay-Z kept a board seat and other artists still have shares. Curious if it will last.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Tidal is the only one for me since it’s the only one with an unofficial HiFi Linux client, which is a wrapper around the web version but with HiFi enabled.

I’m happy reading that they are decent on pay for artists.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

What’s the USP of Deezer over Apple Music now that the latter has lossless streaming as well (and live lyrics for longer)?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

I’m enjoying Tidal

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Thanks for the recommendation, I was worried they would be missing some of my artists but they had 99% of my music. Can’t wait to ditch Spotify.

ETA: dear lord the sound quality is so much better. I had no idea what I was missing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Does Tidal have a lightweight Linux client that’s kept up-to-date?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

As an Apple hater; Apple Music. Cheaper, good cross-platform frontends, more equitable to artists (though by no means satisfactorily so), has a Wrapped equivalent (though who actually cares). Maybe Spotify added something it doesn’t have in the several years since I switched but, I doubt it

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Apple Music is on Android?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Apple Music and Tidal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Qobuz/Tidal/Deezer?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Napster pay decent artist royalties and offer a Spotify migration service for your playlists etc. as well as lossless music.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

It’s too convenient. Most people just want easy access and don’t even think of the downstream impacts. If a song or two goes unavailable, probably won’t notice. There is gonna need to be an alternative that is cheap and feature rich along with Spotify missing some steps. It’s here for awhile.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

You are not wrong, but there are other services that are just as convenient and for less money. Spotify knows they are the “default” music streaming platform and they are exploiting that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

A quick Google puts the top two at Apple and Amazon. So that is a big no for me boss. I am pretty sure the next ones listed are just torrent front ends. I have a life now so no time for that…spotify it is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

While it doesn’t have well known artists, indie streaming Resonate prides itself as having the most generous (or at least, close to) payments to artists. To support this, it has an innovative payment model akin to higher purchase. You pay a little for the first listen to a track, but the price increases through subsequent listens. After 9 listens, you own the track outright. The total cost of ownership is around $0.9

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s a cool model, at least at first glance

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

What is a better alternative, aside from just buying the media directly?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Well better than Spotify is a real low bar. I’m on an apple music family plan and I like it but if I weren’t I’d probably get tidal. And they actually dropped the price of their high quality tier.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

And they actually dropped the price of their high quality tier.

This is what we call competition, kids… i know most people don’t understand the concept but it is supposed to make consumer make a change by providing a good deal.

This is the opposite we see nowadays, where they fuck you and say it is fine because “reasons”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I got a few months of Apple Music with some device, was happy to ditch Spotify. Not very good, preferred Spotify’s UI and logic, but still a better alternative, and at least not pushing podcasts in my face (which I have zero interest in). I will never use Spotify again

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I used Tidal for a year but went back to Apple Music. I don’t understand what people like about Tidal that Apple Music doesn’t offer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’m enjoying Tidal

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

One of these services needs to release a feature like Spotify Connect, can’t switch without a replacement for that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Spotify Connect

Unless I’m reading this wrong, is this just Spotify’s solution for listening with friends? If so, that’s far from a Spotify exclusive feature.

Edit: Okay. So it’s their version of Airplay. It’s too bad Apple never opened it up. Streaming to remote devices has works for almost 20 years now in the Apple ecosystem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Pretty much, I use one computer to remote control the music on my computer that is hooked up to my headphones or speakers.

Nobody else supports that functionality last I checked.

permalink
report
parent
reply
87 points
*

It’s not really just Spotify. I’m a hobbyist music producer. I uploaded my entire catalog through Distrokid about two years ago. Distrokid serves just about every streaming service. It costs $20 a year for the most basic package. I’ve got ~8 million listens according to Distrokid, and that nets me about $40 US. So, I made my money back. Not bad for 20 years of work. Haha!

I don’t really care about the numbers, like I said, I’m a hobbyist. I make music because I enjoy making music. It would never be my career unless I dropped everything and struck out touring trying to make it in an industry that traditionally chews up and spits out hopefuls. I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect

What gets me is that, for the right style of music, age or attractiveness shouldn’t matter as much as it does. You should be able to create your art, whatever kind of art it is, and have the art itself be judged on its merits. Instead we’ve got a bunch of our culture still somehow wrapped up in these veneers of attractiveness. It’s kind of maddening, to be honest. If you’re in your 50’s and making 90’s style Acid House or 2000’s style Trance it shouldn’t matter what you look like. If you’re a DJ it shouldn’t matter if you look like Shirley Temple or Shirley Manson. And yet here we are.

8 million listens netting you only 40 bucks really is insane, isn’t it? I used to think radio royalties were bad: I remember Sting talking about how every time Roxanne got played on the radio someone somewhere got 3 cents. He didn’t say who got the 3 cents, nor did he say how much of that 3 cents went to him. I’m not 100% sure about those numbers (“my memory is muddy, what’s this river that I’m in?”) but they’re a damn sight more impressive than whatever crumbs the streaming companies are paying, somehow a thousand times less than the radio. Spotify’s announcement last year that they weren’t even going to bother paying for songs with less than 1000 streams per month was a shocker - what stops them from making it 2000, or 10,000?

Still, being a hobbyist isn’t all bad. I’ve been releasing jazz cover-versions of pop songs for about 2.5 years now, and have netted about 25 bucks so far :) Who knew jazz versions of Toxic or Rusted From The Rain could be so popular?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

If I made 3 cents a stream, I’d have a quarter of a million…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You could always don a stage persona like Marshmello or Daft Punk. Then nobody cares what you look like under the mask.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I’m in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).

But regardless, I think there is an element of selling your soul to Hollywood to really make it big, and I just don’t have that kind of commitment at this point in my life. I like relaxing and anonymity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).

There’s never a better time to put yourself out there! I resisted it for twenty years. My most “successful” release is one of my least polished tracks. I recorded it just out of university on a Pentium with a stolen microphone, pirated software, a freebie guitar, and a ZOOM 505. It’s got 4 million listens and is responsible for half my income. By comparison, I’ve released stuff that I think sounds like it was professionally recorded in a studio that no one listens to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It’s funny like that, isn’t it?

You catch lightning in a bottle in 5 minutes using Reaper, then spend 100x the time on another song that just vanishes.

Peaches most popular song was a tape recording off the sound desk in a German bar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I appreciate this. Can I have a listen? I also make music… Sometimes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I release everything as “Underwaterbob” - my username. You can find me just about everywhere. If you don’t have a subscription, it’s all on YouTube, too: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ_MZ9yX0STsY1l2Ml2zBFw

I make a wide variety of music.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/channel/UCQ_MZ9yX0STsY1l2Ml2zBFw

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either

Idk. I was happy to pay to hear Mic Jagger live and he looks like shit.

Worst case scenario, just become the new Gorillas

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Not sure I’d use one of the most iconic sexy lead singers in history as an example. No matter much how much he looks like shit now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.

Just start making IDM. Looking weird and/or unattractive seems to be a requirement (and, don’t get me wrong, I’m here for it)

permalink
report
parent
reply
80 points

weekly PSA that spotify is a dumb company who makes no money because they’re stupid.

To put it bluntly, between the artists, and the musicians, there is the publisher (the traditional music company) the money pretty much only goes to the publisher, because spotify doesn’t want to make money, nor do they want artists to make money. And the artists put their shit on spotify because people believe that spending 15 dollars a month on a service that doesnt pay artists, apparently pays artists.

Go support your local musical artists.

permalink
report
reply
32 points

And the artists put their shit on spotify because people believe that spending 15 dollars a month on a service that doesnt pay artists, apparently pays artists.

It’s probably more a case of artists acknowledging the fact that streaming services are one of, if not the, primary sources of music discovery and consumption for many these days. Even if they won’t make money off it, by not being available on these platforms, they may as well not exist for most people. That’s something that only huge, already established names can pull without feeling it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

you know what else streams your music? The fucking internet, that shits free! Literally just posting your shit on a torrent will give you tons of traction to work with. Especially if you already have a pretty significant listener base. Plus you also get the benefit of people like me who are significantly more inclined to buy physical releases of media.

Regardless, streaming is a good way of getting people to hear your shit, if you really want to use a streaming service, don’t go through a publisher, or at the very least, a mainstream publisher. They tend to fuck you over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Sure, but the barrier to entry is significant enough to still deter most people. Even assuming they aren’t bothering with port forwarding and seeding, most people seem like they can’t be bothered with any pattern of consumption more complicated than finding content on major streaming platforms, and the music streaming services haven’t yet gotten annoying enough for most people. They’ll take a peek, go “Do I want FLAC, V0 or 320? WTF is an APE?” and bail again.

We can disagree as to whether it should be that way or not, but I’d wager that the reach of streaming services for a new band far exceeds that of uploading a torrent to a random tracker and hoping it takes off. Unless people already know of you to look for your music, you need to hope a huge number of them are just auto-snatching anything new. On private trackers, sure, you’ll get a bunch of people who auto-snatch any FLAC upload from the current year, but you’re talking about <50,000 users in those cases, and a good chunk of the auto-snatchers are just people looking to build buffer who won’t even listen to most of what they snatch. On the other hand, nobody is auto-snatching all the torrents going up on public trackers, they’d run out of space in no time at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

What are your thoughts around generating traction with a torrent? I have two friends who are both sitting on their albums and thinking about how best to release them. I hope to release something one day too and refuse to use the likes of spotify on principle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*

To add to this, buy their merch and physical copies of their albums. Also, go to shows! Lots of small bands would love a bigger crowd and can be seen for cheap or free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

exactly this, buy merch, buy albums, give them your money directly if you can. (artists, please just let me give you money, i like your shit, maybe i don’t want to buy shit tons of plastic ok?)

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Spotify negotiated shit deals when they were a startup and they’ll basically forever be not profitable because of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

they should’ve became a publisher, or started one on the side, the profit would be immense if they thought of doing that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Seriously. They had a completely open market, then essentially signed a perpetual deal where something like 40% of gross income is paid out to the labels. It’s absolutely insane how poorly run they were in the beginning.

If they had become a publisher, distributor and/or a label, they’d be on top of the world now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Their strategy was probably the classic startup strategy. Grow at all costs and figure out profitability later. These days it’s rather obvious that this strategy sucks and is doomed to fail (for most cases).

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The big record labels are shareholders in Spotify so they’re happy to get less money in streaming royalties because that’s the part they have to share with artists, but the value of their shares they get to keep all for themselves.

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/who-really-owns-spotify-955388/

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

ah of course, schizo economics, how could i forget. “trust me, i will hold shares for you, i promise” Though this still isn’t a good position to be in, because now the publishing companies essentially run spotify, so spotify fucked themselves even more lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I always wonder how the hell don’t make money, it must be some kind of “smart” accounting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s because they are 100% reliant on the record labels, and the record labels know that. So the record labels can charge Spotify whatever they want, because what is Spotify going to do?

That’s why Spotify tried to hard to move into Podcasts and now Audio books, so that they are less reliant on the record labels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

they don’t make money because they’re a tech company, they pull in VC funding, and then lose money year after year, they don’t need to make any money because the model is to get everyone on your platform, and then start making money. (which apparently spotify hasn’t figured out yet)

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ahhh yes, future enshitification!

permalink
report
parent
reply

Go support your local musical artists.

I miss X Fest… :(

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

i’m still riding the high of all the older artists from the 90s till now that i’ve missed out on. We’ll see how long that lasts lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points
*

“Let’s throw away all of our physical media! All digital streaming music, movies and books will be so much better! Everything we want, always available, anywhere!!!”

Somewhat true if you’re a seasoned sailor of the high seas, not so much if not…

permalink
report
reply
27 points

I’m fighting this fight with phone and sd cards. It’s part of the reason they are killing sd card slots to get people to put everything in the cloud.

Sadly most people are morons and are doing exactly that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Most people do not understand that there are many ways to burn a book.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You don’t need to be a “seasoned sailor”. It’s incredibly easy IMO to get what you want if you’re willing to put forth a tiny amount of effort.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The seasoning helps to know where it’s safe to put into port though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

We are entering the golden age of self hosting and I’m gonna go all in!!!

And for those wondering what about artists, two words: live shows

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 505K

    Comments