There are other issues you're not considering, one of which Thom Yorke was alluding to which is that getting paid very small amounts slowly over a long time is not very helpful with paying today's bills (you know, all the costs that need to covered today in order to make an album and allow you to make another album).
Also, in many cases not all of that 0.4p goes to the artist. Other parties like distributors and labels will be taking their cut.
Remember this argument is framed around new artists/music. Putting music on Spotify eventually, after it's had a decent chance of selling can be a good additional revenue stream for artists but it may not be such a good business model for new artists/content.
Fair comment about the slow payment, if you want to make a fast buck then yeah spotify may not be the way, they could try x-factor. Or they could actually go out and tour and earn immediate cash that way from ticket sales like I said before with merch (including hard copy CDs). Many artists get promotion through word of mouth and damn hard work on tour, rather than the label doing all the work for them.
With spotify, would an artist need a label? I'm pretty sure Devin Townsend has his own label. He wont need to pay for half the manufacturing costs for cds if he were only selling hard copies and wouldnt need and distribution deals online either.
Also, spotify is not exclusive, there's tonnes of ways a musician can get their music out there. iTunes and HMv can pay the immediate bills, spotify and other streaming services can build up a nest egg. It's not one OR the other.
End of the day, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, my favourite artists do make money out of me.
Also, spotify is not exclusive, there's tonnes of ways a musician can get their music out there. iTunes and HMv can pay the immediate bills, spotify and other streaming services can build up a nest egg. It's not one OR the other.
End of the day, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, my favourite artists do make money out of me.
No one's saying Spotify is the cause of all problems or that artists don't have other options. It's simply looking at it from a business point of view and suggesting that it may not be the best business model for some artists, depending on their circumstances and what stage of their career they're at.
Some people seem to take offence at this, like you're not allowed to question Spotify and it's something that needs to be defended in all circumstances. I find that odd to be honest.
No one's saying Spotify is the cause of all problems or that artists don't have other options. It's simply looking at it from a business point of view and suggesting that it may not be the best business model for some artists, depending on their circumstances and what stage of their career they're at.
Some people seem to take offence at this, like you're not allowed to question Spotify and it's something that needs to be defended in all circumstances. I find that odd to be honest.
Not at all, I'm pointing out that spotify isn't the rip off demon yorke is making it out to be. An opposing viewpoint on a forum, whatever next?
It's about dividing the spoils/paying people more fairly. You know, how in "normal" business there's a minimum wage. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with big companies in this country paying people something like 50p an hour. Or maybe you would....:eek::D.
ps. it's just an analogy, I know you can't have a minimum wage when it comes to music .
Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world Spotify would be able to pay them more, but a good shareholder minimises costs as low as possible, increases sales, and therefore profit, as much as possible. To expect anything is stupid.
And if Thom Yorke is pissed at anyone, he should pissed at his label for negotiating bad terms, Unless of course, the label sees the value in Spotify that he doesn't...
That would entirely depend on how far you are prepared to look down the 'list' and claim such a thing. Fact: there are bands that have outsold Radiohead's entire discogrpahy with just one album. But we really shouldn't continue with this for fear of 'mod elect' giving me/you (well, me) a right old dressing down.
PS Can't wait for the inevitable song that ensues regarding this epiosde. I'm hoping it's actually called 'Spotify' so we can easily identify that's what the 'lyrics' are about.
That would entirely depend on how far you are prepared to look down the 'list' and claim such a thing. Fact: there are bands that have outsold Radiohead's entire discogrpahy with just one album. But we really shouldn't continue with this for fear of 'mod elect' giving me/you (well, me) a right old dressing down.
Not very far, there are very few current bands out there at the minute that can headline festivals anywhere in the world - Radiohead are one of the few.
You've clearly not had any previous interaction with Smudged on this forum before, i suspect, hence your surprise?
Opposing view is fine but you need to back up those views and do a good job of responding to or counteracting the other person's point of view. If you want to see how Spotify compares to other services/ways of selling music, someone made a diagram here.
Truth is, some people can't or won't look at things from the average new artist's point of view (not a pop star on a big label and a huge marketing budget behind them). They're defending Spotify from a consumer's point of view because they use the service and they think it's great but that's not really what the argument is about. You see it all the time, people think all artists are making a fortune or should be grateful for any money they receive no matter how small their cut is. No one's saying all artists should be able to make a living, clearly some are not going to be good enough. The argument is purely about looking at the options open to artists and suggesting that putting all your stuff on Spotify immediately may not be the best business strategy for some new artists. Not sure why some people want to simplify the argument into Spotify = good or Spotify = bad....although I have an idea that it may have something to do with a dislike for Thom Yorke and wanting to prove him wrong, despite the fact that other people who know quite a bit about the music industry, like Nigel Godrich, are saying the same thing.
[QUOTE=Smudged;67342731Opposing view is fine but you need to back up those views and do a good job of responding to or counteracting the other person's point of view. If you want to see how Spotify compares to other services/ways of selling music, someone made a diagram here.
[/QUOTE]
I did post a link on post 50, guess you must have overlooked that. And its actually a link from a no-name indie artist who spells out why spotify isnt so bad after all.
I did post a link on post 50, guess you must have overlooked that. And its actually a link from a no-name indie artist who spells out why spotify isnt so bad after all.
I did read that and it's hardly a ringing endorsement of Spotify and that one, small self-releasing artist is hardly representative of all types of artists (with different costs and on different contracts).
I don't think you've really been addressing the point Yorke and Godrich are making (in terms of business models and new artists). Instead you've been coming up with scenarios to try to prove that Spotify isn't so bad, which isn't the same thing. It's already been acknowledged that in some situations Spotify isn't so bad, but that doesn't mean it's beneficial in all cases.
I wouldn't touch spotty . .
Like a lot of other folks, the fact it's taken off at all is surprising enough.
Good on Yorkie bar for speaking out about this pile of poop.
I have no idea about Spotify, never used it but I do have an account with Napster. £5 a month for pretty much unlimited streaming. I wonder how Napster compare to Spotify when it comes to royalties going to the artists, I've no idea?
Anyway, I listen to a variety of music on Napster that I probably wouldn't have bothered to check out otherwise. If I like an album I hear I'll then buy it, either on CD or MP3 via Amazon. You used to be able to buy the albums to download off Napster and get some free downloads each month too, but can't anymore since Rhapsody took over, which is a shame. But as I said, I turn to Amazon for purchases anyway.
I did read that and it's hardly a ringing endorsement of Spotify and that one, small self-releasing artist is hardly representative of all types of artists (with different costs and on different contracts).
And conversely one big-name artist, label, and his manager and their little rant is hardly representative either of all types of artists either is it?
At the end of the day, if he wants to spit his dummy out and recieve nothing thats fine by me, i dont actually care.
I'd rather pay a subscription to a service and download the music that way. Im only going to pay for one service though, and spotify happens to be the one Ive chosen. i might change that, i might not, but it works for me. My choice of subscription service certainly is not based on how much an artist gets paid though.
If I desperatly wanted Yorkes music, once he deletes his account, and I didnt want to pay any more, I'd use a torrent for it. Im not saying I would, I have not downloaded music illegally for a long time (for completely different reasons that are irrelevant here) but im sure theres thousands of people who will. At least the artists are getting something these days from spotify - financially, and more importantly - imo - recognition.
I have no idea about Spotify, never used it but I do have an account with Napster. £5 a month for pretty much unlimited streaming. I wonder how Napster compare to Spotify when it comes to royalties going to the artists, I've no idea?
Anyway, I listen to a variety of music on Napster that I probably wouldn't have bothered to check out otherwise. If I like an album I hear I'll then buy it, either on CD or MP3 via Amazon. You used to be able to buy the albums to download off Napster and get some free downloads each month too, but can't anymore since Rhapsody took over, which is a shame. But as I said, I turn to Amazon for purchases anyway.
Sounds pretty much like Spotify. You could buy downloads off Spotify too, but not for a while now, im not sure why.
And conversely one big-name artist, label, and his manager and their little rant is hardly representative either of all types of artists either is it?
At the end of the day, if he wants to spit his dummy out and recieve nothing thats fine by me, i dont actually care.
I'd rather pay a subscription to a service and download the music that way. Im only going to pay for one service though, and spotify happens to be the one Ive chosen. i might change that, i might not, but it works for me. My choice of subscription service certainly is not based on how much an artist gets paid though.
If I desperatly wanted Yorkes music, once he deletes his account, and I didnt want to pay any more, I'd use a torrent for it. Im not saying I would, I have not downloaded music illegally for a long time (for completely different reasons that are irrelevant here) but im sure theres thousands of people who will. At least the artists are getting something these days from spotify - financially, and more importantly - imo - recognition.
Lots of "I's" in your post, which is fine, we're all free as consumers to do as we please. Not sure anyone's said any differently. All Yorke, Godrich and some of us that can see where they're coming from are doing, is looking at it from a new artist's point of view instead.
I would also say the £10 unlimited streaming thing is was too cheap. For unlimited access to pretty much every song ever I'd be valuing that a hell of a lot higher.
I'd agree with that. I think a fairer price would be £50, and I'd gladly pay it. £10 a month for the one of the greatest music discovery tools on the planet is an absolute pittance, and yet...
Yup, Thom Yorke and Nigel Godrich just did Spotify a big favor, they got every music blog and major newspaper to write about the service, the Internet is blazing with this irrelevant story, but if these guys are that mad at the service, is it worth paying attention to?
That’s Spotify’s problem. The youngsters, who glom up every new social networking service, believe it’s irrelevant, for adults at best, and those adults…are so frugal and so afraid of coughing up their Facebook identity that they don’t use it either. And then the smug, self-satisfied digerati complain about streaming costs, even though the service allows you to synch four digits worth of playlisted tracks to your handset so it’s like you own them and…
That’s just the point. Ignorance rules.
Kind of like with the artists themselves…
Read this explanation of Spotify payouts, you’ll find it enlightening:
Making Dollars: Clearing Up Spotify Payment Confusion
As for the complaint that catalog plays get as much in payment as new cuts…do Radiohead really want to take less on “Creep”? I don’t think so, just ask Brian Message, their manager, who came out against Yorke and Godrich’s screed:
Radiohead manager backs Spotify in ongoing Thom Yorke debate
A song is a song is a song. And until recently, catalog music used to cost more at retail! And since everybody’s paid by the play, why give new artists a leg up, when it’s those who last that reap rewards.
As for major label ownership… I hate to disillusion you, but he who has the desirable asset makes the deal on favorable terms. Kind of like Apple and Verizon. Yup, turns out Verizon is upside down on iPhone payments, by BILLIONS!
Verizon Could Owe Apple $14 Billion Over Insufficient iPhone Sales
Should Verizon be complaining that they pay LG less?
Come on. There is no Spotify without the major label catalogs, that’s how they got their ownership position. As for payment per track, this is what has bothered me since Spotify’s inception, the lack of transparency. It’s all digits, they now even tell you the number of streams tracks have, but as far as delineating every last detail of payment…it’s all behind a curtain, exactly the way the major labels like it. They’ve been underpaying and screwing artists since their inception. Which is kind of why artists believe they’re getting screwed by Spotify, because the label is keeping most of the royalties. If you go indie, you get paid more. As for getting paid less per stream… Come on, even Steve Jobs backed down regarding indies and the iTunes Store. Indies now make up a greater percentage of the marketplace than ever before. They’re gaining leverage. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by pulling your music from the service, that’s like an eight year old taking his ball and going home, and one thing about that eight year old…the rest of the kids hate him!
If Yorke and Godrich were smart, and they’re not, based on creating this publicity juggernaut that is benefiting Spotify, not the indie musicians they say they care about, they’d be doing “I Want My MTV” commercials for the service. All acts should be doing this. MTV was a failed enterprise before this campaign, but with stars in commercials imploring viewers to call their cable companies and demand the service…MTV blew up.
We want Spotify to blow up.
Yes, we want everyone in America to have a streaming music subscription. We want to grow the pot. But Yorke and Godrich would rather stand on ceremony and deny the future to their detriment.
Most people to this day don’t know how Spotify works. We’ve got to get them to check it out.
Have you used Spotify with Sonos?
Positively mind-blowing.
Or if you haven’t got this wondrous equipment, have you been at a dinner party, in a restaurant, talking about a track and…
The Spotify subscriber pulls it up instantly on his or her phone. The rest of the patrons are wowed. You’ve got to pay to do this on the go. We’ve got to incentivize people to pay.
Or maybe, like Jimmy Iovine, you try to get AT&T to subsidize your streaming service, MOG/Daisy.
As for iTunes Radio, artists don’t want that. Are you kidding me? You want people to be able to play your music ad infinitum. iTunes Radio is a RADIO service, just like it says. Do you like sitting in your car waiting for another spin of your favorite… OF COURSE NOT! But if Yorke and Godrich and their ilk put a dent in Spotify that’s what you’ll get.
So all you artists, and too often it’s wannabes who weren’t making any money anyway but are students of the game, start proselytizing streaming services. Subscribe yourself and demonstrate them. Use your power to get your minions to sign on.
I'd agree with that. I think a fairer price would be £50, and I'd gladly pay it. £10 a month for the one of the greatest music discovery tools on the planet is an absolute pittance, and yet...
...some are unable or unwilling to see it.
Don't think because I said because streaming should cost more that I am in favour of it. I'm with the other guys there, I would always buys a cd rather than a download or stream.
I have no music that I don't physically have a copy of that I have bought. In fact it annoys me when bands do download only tracks and never release it on CD. As an example, I had to pay about a tenner to get a copy of the single Blur had out last year on CD as it was mostly download only. Awkward ****ers
What makes you think I've never used Spotify?....or that I can't see the benefits of it? Sure, I prefer to own music so I've got a copy locally that I can do whatever I want with, but it doesn't mean Spotify doesn't have it's uses both for the consumer and the artist.
I still don't think (as it stands with the really low payments) that it's necessarily the best business model for all new artists/music and there are lots of other ways for artists to promote and sell music. As Spotify isn't going anywhere though, and has such a large user base, for most artists it's probably more a case of when you put music on there rather than if.
I would always buys a cd rather than a download...
I have no music that I don't physically have a copy of that I have bought
No, I won't download anything, either; give me a physical format or give me death. It doesn't have to be either / or though, does it? You can have both. In fact, when you're out and about, lumping your Sony Discman® around with you and changing albums every 45 minutes seems positively anachronistic in 2013, given you can have over 3,000 tracks stored offline.
I'm still someone who likes to own music and have my own library rather than renting it and having someone else storing the library.
...that threw me
I still don't think (as it stands with the really low payments) that it's necessarily the best business model for all new artists/music and there are lots of other ways for artists to promote and sell music.
Not many that are so comprehensive and convenient though, surely? I mean, who's the best band in the World right now? It's The Mirraz, isn't it? You'd be waiting a long time to hear them played on the radio, so here's a selection of their stuff: http://open.spotify.com/artist/79HYgPQhrRdcGWDwZO2fhV
I'm gonna take a punt and say you hadn't heard of them until just now. And nor had I until last year. And now you have. But what if they'd taken Thom Yorke's lead? That would be two of us whose lives were markedly poorer as a result.
Why did that throw you? I've already said a number of times on this thread that I think streaming is a good idea in a "try before you buy" way.
Most people like yourself sing the praises of Spotify because of the exposure artists can get from it, which is correct. What I've argued is that you can still have that exposure without giving people unlimited streaming (i.e. maybe a system of limited plays for new music as an option that artists could choose if they prefer).
you can still have that exposure without giving people unlimited streaming (i.e. maybe a system of limited plays for new music as an option that artists could choose if they prefer).
People want unlimited streaming. Spotify knows this and so gives unlimited streaming to people who subscribe to maximise subscriptions. If like users who don't pay, I couldn't listen to what ever music I wanted as often as I wanted, there would be no significant benefit to subscribing, so I wouldn't bother. Other subscribers would probably not bother too, meaning Spotify's income would decrease, and therefore so would the amount of money artists received.
People want unlimited streaming. Spotify knows this and so gives unlimited streaming to people who subscribe to maximise subscriptions. If like users who don't pay, I couldn't listen to what ever music I wanted as often as I wanted, there would be no significant benefit to subscribing, so I wouldn't bother. Other subscribers would probably not bother too, meaning Spotify's income would decrease, and therefore so would the amount of money artists received.
I'm proposing limited plays for new stuff and then after a period of time it becomes unlimited (or at least giving artists this option if they choose). So there would still be a huge amount of unlimited streaming available for back catalogue stuff (and more becoming unlimited all the time). I actually think this would be quite a good experiment to see how it compares to the current model.
Don't get me wrong, I know the cat's already out of the bag and the model is very unlikely to change now. I'm just saying what I think could have worked better for new artists. Basically the damage has already been done in terms of devaluing recorded music even further and making it even harder for artists to make money from it. Maybe over time services like Spotify will pay more and it won't be so bad.....
....and that's my final word on the subject. Made far too many posts about it and I'm bored with it now .
I'm proposing limited plays for new stuff and then after a period of time it becomes unlimited (or at least giving artists this option if they choose). So there would still be a huge amount of unlimited streaming available for back catalogue stuff (and more becoming unlimited all the time). I actually think this would be quite a good experiment to see how it compares to the current model.
Don't get me wrong, I know the cat's already out of the bag and the model is very unlikely to change now. I'm just saying what I think could have worked better for new artists. Basically the damage has already been done in terms of devaluing recorded music even further and making it even harder for artists to make money from it. Maybe over time services like Spotify will pay more and it won't be so bad.....
....and that's my final word on the subject. Made far too many posts about it and I'm bored with it now .
And with this dicking around with windowed releases, you force people into teh arms of the pirates..
Release everywhere onto every type of service. All at once. And think of streaming like jukeboxes...
And with this dicking around with windowed releases, you force people into teh arms of the pirates..
Release everywhere onto every type of service. All at once. And think of streaming like jukeboxes...
Obviously I don't agree with that, otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I posted. The balancing act for artists with a service like Spotify is, crudely speaking, gaining money from pirates Vs. loss of money from non-pirates. It's obviously a difficult thing to measure and we can all have our opinions on it. Also, there's still the issue of simply whether the payment model for streaming services is suited to new artists.....but I'm not going into all that again. Really had enough of this subject now, nothing's going to change anyway .
^^ and you could have sampled those artists without unlimited streaming if your intention is to buy music. How many times do you people actually need to listen to something before deciding if they want to own it?
A lot... Sometimes songs are a grower. And what's good about spotify is that you can discover which album is worth purchasing... Because lets face it... Most albums these days are full of rubbish filler songs.
Comments
Fair comment about the slow payment, if you want to make a fast buck then yeah spotify may not be the way, they could try x-factor. Or they could actually go out and tour and earn immediate cash that way from ticket sales like I said before with merch (including hard copy CDs). Many artists get promotion through word of mouth and damn hard work on tour, rather than the label doing all the work for them.
With spotify, would an artist need a label? I'm pretty sure Devin Townsend has his own label. He wont need to pay for half the manufacturing costs for cds if he were only selling hard copies and wouldnt need and distribution deals online either.
Also, spotify is not exclusive, there's tonnes of ways a musician can get their music out there. iTunes and HMv can pay the immediate bills, spotify and other streaming services can build up a nest egg. It's not one OR the other.
End of the day, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, my favourite artists do make money out of me.
Some people seem to take offence at this, like you're not allowed to question Spotify and it's something that needs to be defended in all circumstances. I find that odd to be honest.
Not at all, I'm pointing out that spotify isn't the rip off demon yorke is making it out to be. An opposing viewpoint on a forum, whatever next?
Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world Spotify would be able to pay them more, but a good shareholder minimises costs as low as possible, increases sales, and therefore profit, as much as possible. To expect anything is stupid.
And if Thom Yorke is pissed at anyone, he should pissed at his label for negotiating bad terms, Unless of course, the label sees the value in Spotify that he doesn't...
That would entirely depend on how far you are prepared to look down the 'list' and claim such a thing. Fact: there are bands that have outsold Radiohead's entire discogrpahy with just one album. But we really shouldn't continue with this for fear of 'mod elect' giving me/you (well, me) a right old dressing down.
PS Can't wait for the inevitable song that ensues regarding this epiosde. I'm hoping it's actually called 'Spotify' so we can easily identify that's what the 'lyrics' are about.
Not very far, there are very few current bands out there at the minute that can headline festivals anywhere in the world - Radiohead are one of the few.
Truth is, some people can't or won't look at things from the average new artist's point of view (not a pop star on a big label and a huge marketing budget behind them). They're defending Spotify from a consumer's point of view because they use the service and they think it's great but that's not really what the argument is about. You see it all the time, people think all artists are making a fortune or should be grateful for any money they receive no matter how small their cut is. No one's saying all artists should be able to make a living, clearly some are not going to be good enough. The argument is purely about looking at the options open to artists and suggesting that putting all your stuff on Spotify immediately may not be the best business strategy for some new artists. Not sure why some people want to simplify the argument into Spotify = good or Spotify = bad....although I have an idea that it may have something to do with a dislike for Thom Yorke and wanting to prove him wrong, despite the fact that other people who know quite a bit about the music industry, like Nigel Godrich, are saying the same thing.
Gotta love those lists :yawn:.
[/QUOTE]
I did post a link on post 50, guess you must have overlooked that. And its actually a link from a no-name indie artist who spells out why spotify isnt so bad after all.
Ill post it here again for you.
http://leviweaver.com/2013/02/14/what-does-an-indie-get-paid-4-spotify/
I don't think you've really been addressing the point Yorke and Godrich are making (in terms of business models and new artists). Instead you've been coming up with scenarios to try to prove that Spotify isn't so bad, which isn't the same thing. It's already been acknowledged that in some situations Spotify isn't so bad, but that doesn't mean it's beneficial in all cases.
Like a lot of other folks, the fact it's taken off at all is surprising enough.
Good on Yorkie bar for speaking out about this pile of poop.
Anyway, I listen to a variety of music on Napster that I probably wouldn't have bothered to check out otherwise. If I like an album I hear I'll then buy it, either on CD or MP3 via Amazon. You used to be able to buy the albums to download off Napster and get some free downloads each month too, but can't anymore since Rhapsody took over, which is a shame. But as I said, I turn to Amazon for purchases anyway.
And conversely one big-name artist, label, and his manager and their little rant is hardly representative either of all types of artists either is it?
At the end of the day, if he wants to spit his dummy out and recieve nothing thats fine by me, i dont actually care.
I'd rather pay a subscription to a service and download the music that way. Im only going to pay for one service though, and spotify happens to be the one Ive chosen. i might change that, i might not, but it works for me. My choice of subscription service certainly is not based on how much an artist gets paid though.
If I desperatly wanted Yorkes music, once he deletes his account, and I didnt want to pay any more, I'd use a torrent for it. Im not saying I would, I have not downloaded music illegally for a long time (for completely different reasons that are irrelevant here) but im sure theres thousands of people who will. At least the artists are getting something these days from spotify - financially, and more importantly - imo - recognition.
Sounds pretty much like Spotify. You could buy downloads off Spotify too, but not for a while now, im not sure why.
I'd agree with that. I think a fairer price would be £50, and I'd gladly pay it. £10 a month for the one of the greatest music discovery tools on the planet is an absolute pittance, and yet...
...some are unable or unwilling to see it.
Don't think because I said because streaming should cost more that I am in favour of it. I'm with the other guys there, I would always buys a cd rather than a download or stream.
I have no music that I don't physically have a copy of that I have bought. In fact it annoys me when bands do download only tracks and never release it on CD. As an example, I had to pay about a tenner to get a copy of the single Blur had out last year on CD as it was mostly download only. Awkward ****ers
I still don't think (as it stands with the really low payments) that it's necessarily the best business model for all new artists/music and there are lots of other ways for artists to promote and sell music. As Spotify isn't going anywhere though, and has such a large user base, for most artists it's probably more a case of when you put music on there rather than if.
No, I won't download anything, either; give me a physical format or give me death. It doesn't have to be either / or though, does it? You can have both. In fact, when you're out and about, lumping your Sony Discman® around with you and changing albums every 45 minutes seems positively anachronistic in 2013, given you can have over 3,000 tracks stored offline.
It was the:
...that threw me
Not many that are so comprehensive and convenient though, surely? I mean, who's the best band in the World right now? It's The Mirraz, isn't it? You'd be waiting a long time to hear them played on the radio, so here's a selection of their stuff: http://open.spotify.com/artist/79HYgPQhrRdcGWDwZO2fhV
I'm gonna take a punt and say you hadn't heard of them until just now. And nor had I until last year. And now you have. But what if they'd taken Thom Yorke's lead? That would be two of us whose lives were markedly poorer as a result.
Most people like yourself sing the praises of Spotify because of the exposure artists can get from it, which is correct. What I've argued is that you can still have that exposure without giving people unlimited streaming (i.e. maybe a system of limited plays for new music as an option that artists could choose if they prefer).
People want unlimited streaming. Spotify knows this and so gives unlimited streaming to people who subscribe to maximise subscriptions. If like users who don't pay, I couldn't listen to what ever music I wanted as often as I wanted, there would be no significant benefit to subscribing, so I wouldn't bother. Other subscribers would probably not bother too, meaning Spotify's income would decrease, and therefore so would the amount of money artists received.
Very few people would pay that much for unlimited streaming. £4.99 is not a lot of money.
Don't get me wrong, I know the cat's already out of the bag and the model is very unlikely to change now. I'm just saying what I think could have worked better for new artists. Basically the damage has already been done in terms of devaluing recorded music even further and making it even harder for artists to make money from it. Maybe over time services like Spotify will pay more and it won't be so bad.....
....and that's my final word on the subject. Made far too many posts about it and I'm bored with it now
Release everywhere onto every type of service. All at once. And think of streaming like jukeboxes...
A lot... Sometimes songs are a grower. And what's good about spotify is that you can discover which album is worth purchasing... Because lets face it... Most albums these days are full of rubbish filler songs.