• FiveMacs
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      7 months 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?

        • mkhoury
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          7 months 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)

          • streetfestival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I think Tidal scores the best among music streaming services in terms of compensating artists. I switched from Spotify to Tidal several months ago and have no regrets

        • edric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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.

      • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months 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.

        • mkhoury
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, agreed and every person can only do so much. I like to think that it’s all the same fight, it’s the fight against the stranglehold that the rich have on the rest of us.

      • astraeus@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months 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
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months 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@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months 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.

    • acastcandream@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months 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
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months 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@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months 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.