Recent news revealed that Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek has been investing heavily in military tech companies, which adds another ethical layer to a platform already criticized for how little it pays musicians !
Spotify only pays artists about $3–5 per 1,000 streams, using a pro-rata model that directs most money toward major stars… By contrast, Qobuz (≈$18–20 per 1,000 streams) and Tidal (≈$12–13) pay far more fairly!
However Tidal is far from ethical. Most of its revenue is controlled by private investors and founders and small artists still earn very little…
More fair-minded platforms like Bandcamp, Resonate, Ampled, or SoundCloud’s fan-powered royalties prioritize musicians over investors.
With these more ethical alternatives available, why do we keep using Spotify?
Personally I do this by buying merch. If I buy a shirt from a band than not only do I get a cool shirt but the band also gets paid more in that single transaction than if I listened to their music 5000 times on spotify.
Sure, but that doesn’t give you rights to pirate their music, does it? There is also the problem who gets paid what when you buy their merch.
Ask any artist: they make most of their money from merch and ticket sales (depending on venue).
I assume that depends on the contract they have with their label, but usually it’s a way for them to earn more.
Its standard across the industry. Artists get paid very little in per unit sales of media.
The bulk of money they earn comes from tours (which they cover the bill for, and cut some of the profits from), and merch (which they take the largest cut from).
That’s the standard, yes. And the solution is to pirate their music instead? But seriously, why do they even bother with labels then? Don’t get me wrong, I’d like for them to be better paid and for streaming services to allocate bigger cut to them, however, piracy doesn’t help with this at all. Usually it’s just an average Joe excuse to not pay anything at all.
Labels provide the upfront capital for things like recording studios, distribution (traditionally, less so nowadays when there’s not a physical product to distribute), publicity, marketing, live shows, etc in exchange for a percentage and usually with a contract that the artist will make X many albums with them.
Although things are slowly changing, you are unlikely to be doing huge tours at sold out venues and getting your songs played on the radio unless you have the substantial money to do so in the first place.
Wait … people still listen to the radio?
“Here’s a shitload of ads and someone in Cincinnati choosing what hundreds of stations play.”
Depends on where you live, I suppose. Where I am, you can’t have someone hook up their phone to a bluetooth speaking to play the world’s most tame Spotify playlist but they will absolutely have the radio on at all times.
Almost all of my collection was pirated in college (it didn’t help that someone stole my 96 CD binder from my car). Once I was making OK money and paid downloads became a thing, I slowly rectified that. It was hard to find electronic music any other way in the '90s.
Are most artists still aligned with labels these days? I was under the impression that there’s been a massive shift to going independent.
I have no idea, but if they aren’t, pirating their content is even worse based on criteria here.
Not sure why the jump to piracy here, but it’s consistent with your thoughts on the rest of the thread. “Won’t somebody think about the music labels that screw artists? It’s piracy ruining everything!”
Read how the thread started: “Pirate and pay creators directly.” As per your label comment is interesting, it almost sounds like artists are forced to sign an evil label which entire purpose is to screw artists.
I’m not really worried about whether a label or corporation deems me to have the “right” to listen to their music. The only thing I’m concerned with outside of consuming the art is the artist who made it. I highly doubt any artist would genuinely care if someone pirated their music but still payed them through other means (like buying merch, tickets, etc).
I think the argument of who gets paid what when you buy merch is irrelevant when you consider the alternative being the artist gets virtually nothing. I would have to listen to an artist 200 times for them to maybe get a singular dollar from spotify. If whoever is handling their merch store is giving them less than that for each sale of a shirt then it’s the artists fault at that point for still working with them.
That’s literally what happened with Napster. Metallica were rather pissed, and Napster shut down, leading to the fun P2P days of Whac-a-Mole.
“This is Lars Ulrich, the drummer of Metallica. This month he was planning to install a gold plated shark tank bar beside his pool, but thanks to people like you downloading his music, he must now wait a few months before he can afford it.”
Removed by mod
Fuuuuuuuuck Metallica of course it was one of the grotesquely wealthy ones that tried to kill sharing. Maybe the entire industry eat itself and collapse !