• Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Man, a lot of people here don’t understand how the music industry works. From the perspective of someone who’s been loosely following the music industry, what I’ve learned is that it doesn’t matter if Spotify gave up 2/3rds of their revenue, or 100% of it, the artists would still make fuck all.

    Why?

    The labels love taking their cuts and as a result, artists make very little. Instead of taking the blame for giving artists a <10% cut of the label’s revenue from their music (my understanding is that it’s pretty common for musicians to get <10%, sometimes <5% if you’re on a particularly shitty label), the labels are blaming platforms like Spotify.

    Now, I’m not saying that Spotify is blameless, however I think there’s a lot of misdirection from the labels going on. I don’t remember anyone complaining about pre-spotify services like Pandora Radio for not paying out enough when they were largely ad-supported, which is another reason I’m not totally buying the, “it’s cause it’s free” argument either.

    Fuck, remember Pandora?

    • spacebirb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      71
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Labels are an outdated concept that needs to die. Now that you can find any music from just a quick search artists shouldn’t have to rely on them, at least not as heavily, for advertising.

      • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        There was a very, very brief moment from about 2005 to 2011 or so where there was money to be made directly by artists on iTunes or the other music stores where the tracks were like 99 cents each.

        But people stopped buying as soon as Spotify became popular, and now any artist that wants to release on Spotify without a label still doesn’t make much money.

      • TheFriar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        11 months ago

        Relatively “large” truly independent bands like KNOWER are starting to give true home recording a base of proof of functionality.

        Power to bandcamp.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why isn’t there some kind of genre music search for all artists without a label, Foss of course. From what I understand, when you’re starting out in music, getting people to hear it is the hardest part.

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Artists aren’t forced to sign a contract with a label. They do it because they want to.

        They do it because the label will often invest a million dollars in the artist upfront before the songs are even available for the public to stream.

        Good recording studios are expensive to hire. And if you want a video track to go with it… those are even worse.

        • QueriesQueried@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          Uhhhh, dunno about that one. Pretty sure it’s public knowledge labels will go to almost any lengths to ensure artists cannot be independent, especially when they’re small. Good recording quality is quite readily available in many large cities, either as a paid service (which sometimes is still outbid by labels), or through a public library. Many of the issues of “labels investing in artists” loop back around to “labels have made it physically impractical or impossible for the artist to invest in themselves”.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Indies are on sporify too. Spotify pays them shit too. Label or not.

      • wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        11 months ago

        They just changed the rules so that if smaller artists don’t get a certain number of plays they don’t even get a payout.

        • GenEcon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          With less than 1000 streams per year.

          This is solely to kick out the AI generated music, which is already taking a significant share of the payout from the musicians.

          This change is not against smaller artists, but for them.

          • t0fr
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I kind of call bullshit on that take.

            There’s definitely AI generated music that can surpass 1000 streams per year and many real bands that cannot.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Less than 1000 streams is like a band being unable to fill up a 100-person venue for a 10-song set once in a year (for the kind of band that plays live gigs). Opening acts for obscure bands play more than that. If you’re that unpopular, you’re hardly a band at all.

              They didn’t say all AI generated music gets less than 1000 streams; they implied most of it does.

              • t0fr
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                But then are you implying that those bands that are that unpopular are undeserving of getting paid even a little? Because they’re not a “real” band?

                • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Stuff that nobody wants to listen to just takes up space and clutters up searches, making it harder for people to find the stuff they actually want. It had negative value for the platform and for users. That’s why they went the AI stuff gone. If a few actual bands miss out on a few dollars of revenue as a result of Spotify getting rid of the outright junk, I’m not gonna shed a tear over it.

                  • t0fr
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    You don’t have to shed a tear. But I find your take incredibly harsh on bands that are trying to start out and find their audience.

                    Eliminating low quality AI content is desirable for me as well, but nuking even more incentive for bands that are starting out is the wrong thing to do in IMHO

    • raptir@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Pandora didn’t replace buying music. They did not add the “on demand streaming” option until after Spotify was prevalent.

    • Kuma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Do you know how the merch shops works? Spotify seems to be a reseller of some kind. How many % of the money is going to the artist usually?