this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
554 points (90.1% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
2852 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 129 points 11 months ago (27 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago (10 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago (9 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I don't actually know anything about where bands are supposed to find an audience, but I don't think bands who haven't found an audience should expect to get paid, the same way I don't expect to get paid for going to a job interview or engaging in a hobby. If a band doesn't have an audience they can reliably entertain, what they're doing is self promotion for their own benefit, not entertainment for the benefit of an audience.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Even if you are starting out thousands streams is nothing. I have a few friends who have a band. Its really small, basically everyone who listens to them knows them personally. They have 20 monthly listeners, but almost all of their songs on their own have 1.000 yearly streams – because Spotify puts them randomly into their automatically generated playlists.

Meanwhile kicking all the 'bands' out with less than 1000 streams allows them to pay the rest more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I thought it was 2,000?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)