• sub_o
    link
    fedilink
    English
    761 year ago

    I remember when Joe Rogan was getting giant paycheck from Spotify promoting antivax stuff, and people talked about moving to Apple Music, but it feels like many just stuck with Spotify.

    I came across a post on instagram that says that Al Yankovic’s 80 million stream on playlist only netted him enough money to buy a sandwich.

    Also, Spotify underpaying artists, making fake playlists with cover artists to undermine artists, are not new. It feels like the mainstream crowd just doesn’t care, which pushes me further into depression.

    • FiveMacs
      link
      fedilink
      261 year ago

      I personally don’t care because if a company isn’t paying you for your time/work, that’s their problem to sort out, not mine. I will go where the music is. If artists start leaving Spotify and it becomes a wasteland of nothing but trash, then I’ll find new places to get it from. Why should I worry about their income? I’m paying for a service, I get the service and use it. I have my own income issues to handle, I don’t need theirs too.

      • @mkhoury@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        471 year ago

        What Spotify does affects the entire music market. Why should you worry about their income? Because Spotify’s strategy makes it harder and harder for musicians to have the income to keep on making music. If you care about having music to listen to, you should care about this. Also, Spotify and music is just one example of the overall exploitation of workers. If you don’t stand for artists when it’s their livelihood at stake, why should anyone stand up for your rights when it’s your livelihood at stake?

        • CalamityBalls
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          Buy concert tickets if you want to support musicians, streaming income doesn’t really factor into it afaik.

          • @mkhoury@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            231 year ago

            That’s the point, though. Spotify is rigged specifically so that they don’t have to pay small artists. Spotify splits the pot with the Big Three and everyone else can go fuck themselves. I would much rather my monthly payment go toward the artists I actually listen to. Instead, most of a monthly payment goes to the most played artists-- which Spotify rigs to be whoever nets them the most money (low royalty artists, high dividends for Spotify and the Big Three who are highly invested in it)

          • edric
            link
            fedilink
            5
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Even concerts barely break even for artists after all expenses. Right now, merch and physical album sales are the best way (other than directly giving money) to support your favorite artists. I don’t buy physical albums because they just become clutter at home, so I make it a point to buy merch when I go to a concert.

        • astraeus
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Does Spotify affect the music market or does the music market affect Spotify’s mode of operations? Can Spotify really exist in an ecosystem where artists are fairly represented and paid equally? Look at Bandcamp, it’s been trashed and deserted because the companies that have taken advantage of it found the model unprofitable by their estimates.

          There of course are many things Spotify could do, but unfortunately the momentum in the music industry is towards profit and not actual talent or social consciousness. Spotify is owned by money makers, not individuals with true appreciation for the art of music.

          • @acastcandream@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All we know is the companies weren’t able to extract what they wanted out of band camp, not that its model wasn’t working or couldn’t work.

            • astraeus
              link
              fedilink
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              As I said, by their estimates. I do not endorse the idiocy that compels this greed and ignorance towards true art. I myself am a musician and by no means am I popular or thriving on my art. I can’t be upset with Spotify because it’s still a better system than hoping any physical media I release will make it into the hands of others, in a music industry that has generally discouraged people from listening to underground artists. With digital media, Bandcamp is probably one of the best platforms for artists.

        • AnonStoleMyPants
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Not op but I would not care much. Sure things could be better but it’s not my problem. There is enough shit to worry about and music (or Spotify) is nowhere near the top half.

          Same argument about standing up to someone’s livelihood being at stake can be said literally about everything. I got a limited amount of fucks to give. I’m happy if people want to fight this stuff and make music better for everyone but I ain’t part of that crew.

      • @acastcandream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        You’re welcome to feel that way but you basically surrender any right to complain about the state of the music industry.

      • @Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Sony and Universal own a pretty decent chunk of Spotify, so they have every incentive to force their artists to stay on the platform.

      • Turun
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        This is a valid opinion to have as a consumer in the here and now.

        However, if you think about the bigger system and how it will change in a few years time, you’ll notice that the matter is not quite this simple. It’s easy to imagine that no single musician is brave enough to take the first step onto a new platform devoid of users, just like you are not willing to jump to a new platform devoid of musicians. And if no artist takes the first step and no user takes the first step, then the status quo will prevail. Now, that may not necessarily be a bad thing. But if artists are not paid enough to continue making music for Spotify, then they’ll stop making music for Spotify. That’s fine if you like mainstream music of whoever games the system successfully. But it’s easy to see how that would be a loss to some people.

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      201 year ago

      Reporting on Spotify’s payments to artists typically puts payments at 0.003 - 0.005 USD per stream. 80,000,000 streams at 0.003 is just shy of a quarter of a million dollars. And it’s totally fair to still argue about whether that’s enough or whether it’s fair to the many small artists than Weird Al, but his video is definitely a joke and not reflective of the actual income unless he’s getting unbelievably shafted by his label

      • @cwagner@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Which is why it really sucks. Now people remember that number, keep repeating it, and essentially he has become a fake news peddler. Good job, Al.

    • @NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      When pay is basically non existent is there a reason to be on spotify? Or is it for “exposure” in hopes of finding new fans.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        The same reason merchandise sellers are on Amazon even though Amazon forces them to lower prices and make less: if you’re NOT on Amazon, people just won’t find you. If you’re not on Spotify, you don’t exist in the music world to some people. Because otherwise where else will they search for you? Youtube Music or Apple Music, both pay sites. Otherwise you’re having word of mouth or searching manually.

    • @cwagner@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      I came across a post on instagram that says that Al Yankovic’s 80 million stream on playlist only netted him enough money to buy a sandwich.

      It was hyperbole, unless his sandwich costs 200-300k. Which is the reason why his statement was very questionable.

    • Nix
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Apple Music isnt much better and giving even more power to such a huge corporation sucks. Regardless though, there’s this thing thats been understood with services/products where most people don’t switch unless the competition is 10x better.

      • aroom
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Apple Music pays two time what Spotify does. Easy pick between the two.

    • PrivateNoob
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m stuck in a family plan with 4 of my friends + a friend’s sister. I’m open to getting a Family Tidal Hifi Plus, but I’m not so sure, if all of them are willing to change for a higher tier and using a different servicr.