So true …
That is exactly the blueprint of how to keep slaves slaves. Make them believe that there is no other option to survive and that the so called freedom is only a myth and leaving the slave farm will only cost you your life.
This narrative is perfect and has worked for ages. Until … let’s see …
Capitalism innit.
Make the worker as remote as possible from the fruits of their labour and they will begin to see the borgeois as indispensable and essential to their continued existence, despite the opposite being the case.
Why do people stream is an important question in this. I had an original Sony Walkman. I still have one. Whats so hard about taking a tape out and changing it for another. Its a shame we have all become so lazy.
Devil’s advocate here, but I spend a lot of time digging out music, deciding what to put on, etc. If I were still using CD’s, I’d probably just press play for the 5th time that day on the same disk - that’s the lazy option where I’m concerned 
But there might be a different approach to this. In many cases the artist is the “employee” of the management and the label, giving up his or her intellectual property rights, and is absolutely controlled by contracts and people making more money from the artist’s work than the artist.
It should and can be the other way around. The artist should employ management and services, which are paid under fair conditions, keeps all rights, and can withdraw and change horses, if this becomes necessary. Fair business vs exploitation. For the audience it could be no difference.
AFAIK the law in many countries puts the creator of art in the drivers seat, until she or he decides to sell out …
Look at Socialism, it’s there as well … like in former UdSSR, China, Cuba, etc. … it’s the same baseline … a small group of political elite takes it all … the majority pays.
‘State Capitalism’, ackshully.
Well put 
That’s the problem with Socialism. Marx’s analysis of capitalism was spot on and still checks out 150 years later. The problem comes when people think they can hurry the process along (which Marx has to take responsibility for by contradicting his own analysis and calling for “permanent revolution”) by enacting various different forms of state tyranny under the mistaken impression they were any better than the capitalists.
And let’s not forget what happens to music and the arts when the state takes over and starts telling everyone what to think and what to say.
I stream using Spotify, mostly albums I already have on cd, or to check out new stuff I’ve heard about elsewhere, and which I usually end up buying on CD. With a long commute and limited time to rip cds to listen on the train the app experience is just easier. Haven’t really tried many alternatives.
I would favour a subscription model where you get the first 30 streams of any given song or album included, and then if you want more you can buy it in the app (as a download and/or order a physical copy.
In principle, platform business models have the potential to democratise market access and directionality (producer-to-consumer-to-producer) which would be a BIG contribution and progress from the monodirectional, oligarchic structures that ruled still in the 80s and 90s - especially in media.
So that’s a “two thumbs up” for all platform businesses including Spotify. However, ignoring the dark side of the platform potential is being willfully ignorant (not saying you do this at all, but the valley kind often do). Zuckerberg and co will argue that the democratisation and flattening of hierarchies they bring are so valuable that it’s ok to have a little bit of economic and informational exploitation going on. Basically, it’s the cost of access.
But the philosophy has long shifted from genuine aim to democratise to an aim to dominate. No doubt about that, just look into comments made by Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and even diverse Google execs. Why do you think Trump put out an executive order against TikTok?
What that leads to is a flattening of of hierarchy alright - but the democratisation is subject to the benevolent dictator that is the platform owner. Case in point: Apple and Epic Games - Epic has complained, has rallied and yesterday I believe Apple told Epic that they would have their developer license revoked on the 28th August…
There are plenty of academics that argue the revolutionary power of platform models, me included, but we are coming to realise that the question of ownership of the platform is not just an trivial/economic one, but a crucial factor in determining a platform’s evolutionary trajectory and net-net impact on our socio-economic structures.
Spotify has DEFINITELY changed the game - and in many ways for the better. However their total grip on the value chain (as mentioned above, they hold ALL the cards in determining how value flows in and around their platform) means that a lot of the changes that have happened to the industry end up benefitting the platform more than its participants. It’s the emperor’s new clothes - significant revolution without the significant material impact.
And I do understand your bottom line argument of course, but the sad reality of startup capitalism today is that your bottom line just doesn’t really matter. Not to the entrepreneur, not to the investor, and certainly not to the customer. I know this is not sustainable, you are right, but it IS how the game works / has worked for the past 10-15 years.
I run a company that is in the 5-10m revenue per annum category. We’ve been profitable since day one and have been consistently running a profit over the past six years. If I would want to sell the company, I’d get a multiple of MAX 3x - and that would be a golden scenario. Currently valuations for our line of business would be more likely around 1x - 1.7x of annual revenue.
Spotify’s annual revenue in 2019 was €1.85bn Euros (1.6bn on subscriptions and 217m on ad revenue). It’s current market cap is just shy of 50bn… That’s a multiple of over 27x…on what basis? Not their profitability, I guarantee you that.
The reason these valuations are so high (Uber, Facebook etc) is one reason only: the promise of dominance over channel power.
Spotify know exactly what they are doing. They are playing it by the Valley playbook for scaling platform businesses, and I guarantee you that in this business model, the supplier is considered the lowest ranked participant in the value chain - which in Spotify’s case is the musician. Sure they paid Joe Rogan $120m for his podcast and Drake gets more payout from Spotify annually than a team of factory workers will earn in a lifetime, but in a way that’s EXACTLY what we had in the 80s and 90s also, where the winner took it all and the long tail was left hanging out to dry.
maybe we should all put so many releases on Spotify their server costs go through the roof instead?
I feel like that might make more difference to be honest.
Yeah, you’re right. There’s the way we’d like the world to work, and then there’s how it actually works.
People like Daniel Ek understands how the world actually works, and puts aside any ideas on how you could change it for the better.
I think that’s what pisses me of the most. Not that there’s opportunity for the clever, I can appreciate a strong and smart entrepreneur, but that so few of them then apply their leverage to just generally make things better. A guy like Ek could take a cut, still do well and just make shit better.
But he won’t. Cause people like him are rarely wired that way.
Theres nothing wrong with listening to your favourite tracks numerous times. In fact it can make you a better producer as you understand how the track works from a production point of view and can put that knowledge into your own music. Skipping from track to track gives you less insight.
I’ve been on bandcamp over a year and a half and I haven’t made a dime. I have 60+ songs on it of ambient / experimental stuff. Either bandcamp sucks or I do… lol.
I know it may not be possible for some, but if you are purchasing from Bandcamp, i would suggest doing so on the first Friday of every month.
These are known as ‘Bandcamp Fridays’, whereby Bandcamp waives its revenue share on all sales, to give musicians more money from each purchase.
This was originally set-up to help artists during the pandemic (as a one-off in March), but has been extended until the end of the year.
Very commendable i think.
Agreed. I was simply suggesting that neither mode of listening is necessarily the result of ‘laziness’.
I don’t have Spotify, never will. I buy all my Tracks, it’s a duty.
TL;DR:
all that model of music distribution via streaming platforms sucks massively.
because musicians/producers earn nothing (comparing to music production costs) and will earn even less in the future.
but what’s most surprising is that musicians/producers are still making music with XX century methods and production cycle, despite the fact that the world has changed, and current distribution model will never pay off even the production costs.
what’s sad is that we don’t have better distribution model anyway.
This is interesting. I heard that the album emerged as a way to collect singles, and stands as a solution to a certain set of conditions within history. But as you say, people still make them.
I also read somewhere that tracks are getting shorter because someone’s worked out the optimum track length on Spotify.
At the other end, as YouTube becomes more prominent in listening tastes, there may be a shift to long-form content (more viewer hours…) - who’ll be the first artist to do the equivalent of ‘lofi beats to study/relax’ for their own music?