Ok, so we do agree on that. It's still one of the best libraries of music to sift through out there, apart from YouTube of course.it's the business model of Spotify that is so horrid.
It's over 4 million plays. Surely you could sell a few t-shirts?TomViolenz wrote:Well good luck with that
Here's some other points to consider...TomViolenz wrote:I honestly don't find it surprising that the subribers like it, but why so many here, including you, who are independent musicians defend being stolen from.
If they wan't to gain any semblance honesty they start to pay per track listen from these 10 bucks to the artists that the subriber actually listened to. Not some weird algo that only gets the very big mainstream acts everything.
+1uthemus wrote: If you're in it for the money, you better be working real hard to produce bangers and hits. Besides, it's a better motivating factor, because not all music is going to sell. It's just not.
And music is not as tangible as an art piece, so thrice as difficult for us.
All well and good, if the masses would use it like you claim to do. But Spotify already having 18% of the market and rising, indicates to me that people will likely just do away with buying music altogether and rent it. Meaning the advertisement angle you talk about will go away. Advertisment only works if people actually still buy the product and not consider the advertisement to be the product already. I already talked about this above.H20nly wrote:Here's some other points to consider...TomViolenz wrote:I honestly don't find it surprising that the subribers like it, but why so many here, including you, who are independent musicians defend being stolen from.
If they wan't to gain any semblance honesty they start to pay per track listen from these 10 bucks to the artists that the subriber actually listened to. Not some weird algo that only gets the very big mainstream acts everything.
1. It's not stealing if the artist opts in and gets paid
2. With Spotify (at least) when you pay you can then listen to the whole album. About a year or two ago I had a Spotify account for a while and at least one artist benefited from that (K.Flay).
3. You can buy an album in iTunes and/or Google Store if you like it. There's even a link.
4. The exposure artists have got from iTunes and Pandora causes people who are willing to buy to go ahead and purchase something they may not have heard otherwise...
Here are just a few of the artists that i've purchased after being exposed to them from streaming (either for the first time or the first time in a long time)
Morcheeba
Suzuki
Typical Cats (I bought all 3 of their albums and one of the members solo album. I had never heard of them)
Molemen
Surreal & The Sound Providers
Surreal and DJ Balance
Peter Bjorn and John
The Pharcyde
The Hebalizer
Modest Mouse
Flobots
Fatlip
Emancipator
Thievery Corporation
Cool Calm Pete
Cunninlynguists
Aim
Gotan Project
Nightmares on Wax (2 albums)
Living Legends
Binary Star
Chet Faker
Common Market
Jazz Addixx
Massive Attack
Tricky
There's more...
With the exception of The Pharcyde, Living Legends, and Thievery Corporation I would not have walked into a record store and purchased any of those albums. I either did not know about them or had long since forgotten them. The purchase from iTunes feature on Spotify, Pandora, and iTunes Radio is responsible for making purchasing the albums possible while I was sitting on the crapper and the fact that they played a song (and an artist got paid for that) meant that I was inspired to make that purchase.
) that pays more money/play to the brackets with the most listens. )If I would have wanted to sell t-shirts, I would have become a designer, not a musician.BaronVonAbelDong wrote:It's over 4 million plays. Surely you could sell a few t-shirts?TomViolenz wrote:Well good luck with that
That's a weird way to look at it. Sure if you manage to pull in 4 million streams, the 1100 USD you get probably are just some sort of icing on your cake.BaronVonAbelDong wrote:
No pleasing some I guess.
The stats you refer to in the image are completely skewed, that was my point. All other kinds of income streams kick in to support someone that is able to generate 4 million listens with music that people want to play and hear.
It's getting there which most will find hard, and that part doesn't change, wether it's Spotify or iTunes or vinyl...
If you are at a position where you are getting 4 million plays on Spotify, you won't really be too worried about how much it's bringing in, it will be icing on the cake that you are already being served.
The stats are disingenuous and are taking the focus away from the fact having 4 million streams means you 'should' already be in a position that just from publishing, performance, mechanicals (if any) and other royalties you would be on enough to pay the bills and have some to spare.
Too many spoilt 'musicians' holding on to the past at the moment no? Maybe my take on it is backwards or there's something I'm missing. I'm completely open to changing opinions, as what benefits any of us can be shared. Maybe I just haven't found a piece of the puzzle that you or someone else has and will share?
Again, I would love to hear of a solution for moving forward, with the technologies we have, that ensures fair payment (whatever that is) and is still 'fair' for the 'consumer'. Do we have anything better than DIY or iTunes plus?
In the meantime I'm off to press up some more vinyl while I still can.