As someone who has recently closed up one of these ‘unneeded leeches’, I can say that services like Spotify are jsut pushing the responsibility of policing content further down the stream to distributors rather than figuring out a way to do it themselves. But in the end, these services don’t need or probably even want independent music from distributors. They would be just fine without it. And if anything, it would be easier to just work with the handful of major labels and a few of the major indies.
5 Likes
Even at a small distributor like Traxx.space, we had many users making several thousands of dollars a month in royalties. Probably not enough to live off that alone but nearly all of those users were actively playing live, doing youtube videos, getting sync placements, etc. Recorded music revenues are just a piece of the pie for full-time musicians. And dare I say it’s always been that way except for that .01% who are the major stars. So it’s not necessarily the fault of Spotify or streaming, it’s the consumer.
2 Likes
Oh, sorry, I didn’t meant to be insulting.
Well, not to you at least 
And very sorry to hear you got to close your company.
My sincere apologies.
But yeah, I believe third party proxy services are unneeded between streamers and independent artists.
Unless they’re used as a firewall to discourage anyone to flood with stupid sounds, of course. 
But this should imo be the streaming service responsibility more than the third party service…
Now that I’m thinking this more thoroughly, I guess that the fact that you don’t stream randomly on bandcamp naturally protect them from flooding.
Whereas major streaming services are an easy target.
OK, I’ll eat my words.
4 Likes
This reminds me of the Diamond distribution system in comic books.
Artists make comics. Sell them to a publisher who puts them on paper, binds them, does the marketing and advertising. Or puts them into a digital form.
Readers buy comics. Go to a shop who orders comics in bulk for retail or just download them straight to their devices.
Squatting in the middle of these 4 groups like a parasite is Diamond Distribution, which adds exactly nothing to the process. Even with most comics now going digital, Diamond’s grip hasn’t been loosed. It’s so pointless it’s perverse.
No worries. I wasn’t insulted. I just wanted to provide a different perspective. We closed because of Spotify’s changes. They are dominant in the industry and have a major impact on those downstream from them.
What annoyed me about the changes was that Spotify thought they were punishing fraudsters when, in reality, they are just hurting their distribution partners. They rely on those partners to filter out spam tracks and provide some level of gate keeping. Several others have closed or are in the process of closing in the coming months. We will be left with just a handful of the large ones like Distrokid, Tunecore, CDBaby, etc. Prices will continue to go up as those remaining distributors try to offset the fines and other new fees the channels implement. Because right now, it’s just Spotify. But as others see how much revenue comes in from it, they will implement it as well.
3 Likes
Spotify had every opportunity to do better for the musicians they hosted. But instead they paid lower rates than their competition, lobbied for paying lower rates, bundled content to justify paying lower rates, and then cut off the bottom tier of rates entirely. They’re repeatedly anti-musician and pro-corporation. Music is business, of course, but not all business has to be “chase the bottom line at every turn”. Businesses can choose where and how to operate, who they support etc.
1 Like
Their royalty rates are simple math. It’s the same for all channels. Tidal pays more because they have less streams than Spotify. They are all paying out roughly the same percentage of subscription revenues as royalties. Spotify’s rates are less because their users are streaming more music than other platforms. It’s really that simple. So they have a couple of options to raise those rates. Either put a cap on how many songs you can stream in a month (which they’d never do), raise subscription costs (which they have done) and offer other content (podcasts, books, etc.) and charge an even higher rate.
Spotify only recently had a profitable quarter. They have been burning through cash.
Spotify lobbying for lower rates is around mechanical royalties which have fixed rates and, to be fair, stuck in pre-streaming times.
All these other service claiming they are ‘artist first’ and ‘better for artists’ are only in that position because their market share is lower than Spotify. Bandcamp is probably the only service that is truly ‘for the artist’. Apple could offer up a fixed rate and make Apple Music a loss-leader but it’s not like they can double the rate.
And the monthly subscription rate is determined by the consumer. Spotify and others are slowly trying to raise those rates but they can only go up so high before they will lose subscribers. Consumers today probably aren’t willing to spend $20/month or more on music. We, as music enthusiasts here, would probably pay that or even more but we are a relatively small group. Piracy really crushed the industry and it’s going to take decades or maybe even a few generations before consumers get used to spending $30+/month on music like people did in in the late 90’s-early 2000’s.
4 Likes
Personally, I miss the good old days when the only musicians who earned money or popularity from their work were the truly special ones who got chosen by a pure-intentioned record label recruiter who decided it was worth having them sign a contract and record in a million dollar studio to have a run of vinyl printed and sold at corporate retailers.
Music as a form of communication and and expression has really gone into the dumpster ever since the internet allowed the hoi polloi to self-record their art and choose to self-publish on streaming services that allow millions of people to cheaply and instantly explore and enjoy it. The people who built and maintain these services are destroyers of art really, no better than Stalin.
Make music harder to find and more expensive to access again I say! What meaning does art even have anymore if it only brings its creator fame and admiration, but no cold, hard lucre? My music will be special and famous any day now and I don’t want any nickels from Scrooge Spotify on the off chance that millions of people might encounter and enjoy my music without having to pay for it, I want those fat checks rolling in from my loyal fans who sought me out on the respectable publishers at undergrounddirges.com and exclusivexxhypedawlessdjentjazz.net
2 Likes
Spotify is great…. for me to poop on!
5 Likes
Er no that’s 100 in your pocket dude.
They also pay a lot for people around the world to press play whilst their computers are muted to rack up plays!
2 Likes
More than you’d ever believe. And Spotify’s new ‘fraud detection’ motion will never punish them. They’ve got their thumb on the scale for sure.
1 Like
I left Shadify for Tidal and never looked back
2 Likes
Licensing the libraries for commercial operations is probably far easier than the flexibility of developing your own toolsets while avoiding being sued by
Fraunhofer or similar IP holders.
At what point is it better to just pirate music if your money is going to executives and not the bands you like?
This is just capitalism, not someone doing you a favor.
2 Likes
this guy fucking sucks more every year.
It’s been reported that, in the last 12 months, Spotify founder Daniel Ek he has earned more from the platform than any artist has ever .
Drake, Ed Sheeran, Billie Eilish, even Taylor Swift can’t beat the $345 million that Ek has made in the last year. Essentially, it feel like every musician on Planet Earth (or at least those that are on Spotify) is working for him.
15 Likes
“Second to Ek is another Spotify exec, Martin Lorentzon, whose $166.8 million worth of shares is equal to 55.6 billion streams. This would make him the ninth most streamed artist on all time.”
5 Likes
It’s disgusting.
We all need to boycott all of the steaming services and digital distribution as a whole.
I can tell you from experience that when I used to run a label, even with reviews in top magazines and features on the front pages of all the big steaming and download sites… we generated more income on bandcamp by orders of magnitude, with less paperwork and less hassle.
I also generated more income just pressing up some vinyl and distributing it myself by going round all the shops and giving it to them on sale or return.
Honestly, piracy is more honest than streaming. Pirates do the same without the pretence of legitimacy.
All of the streaming sites are scum feeding off the talent and hard work of artists.
If you’re starting out now (or even if you’re not) just go the DIY route. It is more honest and more fulfilling.
16 Likes
And we have AI, which is piracy with insufferable smugness, and for profit in a negative sum game.
5 Likes
Another nudge of a recommendation for Tidal. Not perfect but a lot more artist friendly and focused. The more people move the more likely change will happen.
I only use it for things before I’ve heard them a few times or if they’re not on Bandcamp. If it’s on Bandcamp and you’ve looped it more than 10 times you should buy it. And don’t say you can’t afford it if you’re on here.
3 Likes
Not to defend Spotify or anything (I probably have 5 streams there) but there is no way Tidal or any other service won’t be as bad eventually. It’s the natural progression of things, technology and unfortunately business.
1 Like