this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
413 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
342 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 27 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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@lemmy.ca 46 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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?

[–] CalamityBalls@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Buy concert tickets if you want to support musicians, streaming income doesn't really factor into it afaik.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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

[–] morry040@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

It's estimated that Tidal pays $0.013 per stream, Spotify pays $0.003 - $0.005, and Apple pays $0.01 per stream.
https://dittomusic.com/en/blog/how-much-does-tidal-pay-per-stream/

[–] cwagner@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I doubt it pays much better, the issue might be partially the distribution, but mainly that they are too cheap.

[–] Kiloee@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While it isn’t a lot more in general it is still about three times of Spotify. It also takes into consideration which artists you actually stream afaik, so that your money goes more towards those.

[–] ericjmorey@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Look like Tidal pays 4x more than Spotify on average. For small artists, it's likely hundreds of times more.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] cwagner@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

Buying digital albums works just as well. No need to go physical.

[–] AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 11 months ago

I dunno, I feel like its not that big of a deal to not pay spotify $15 a month

[–] toothpicks@beehaw.org 4 points 11 months ago

I am a musician and I deserve to make a living just like you.

[–] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 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 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 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.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 10 points 11 months ago

Found the egoist!

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 6 points 11 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 4 points 11 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 2 points 11 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.