We're not destroying the music biz: Spotify Streaming music service Spotify has established a new web site - spotifyartists.com that explains it is not destroying the music business, but is instead showering riches on artists. The new site claims Spotify has handed over $US500m in royalties this year alone and has cracked the $1bn payments mark over its lifetime. It …
@Psyx
I totally agree, but only 20 years ago (i.e., pre-internet) these "guys who are already short of cash" had pretty much zero alternatives to local performances. Now they can still do their local performing while supplementing their income via outlets like Spotify. An new revenue source PLUS the ability to reach a worldwide audience for potential sales and performance opportunities. HOW is this a bad thing?
Free access to:
-- gazillions of pounds worth of global marketing and publicity
-- a zillion pound worldwide digital distribution system
-- gigazillions of pounds worth of free technical advice
-- a captive audience of literally billions
HOW is this a good thing for a poor struggling musician trying to publicise his work?
"I imagine that the major-label performers are doing fairly well, having had their label negotiate deals from a strong position. As usual, it's the guys who are already short of cash who will be getting hosed."
You imagine incorrectly. No performer is doing well at all from Spotify and other streaming services. The pay per stream, being particularly small fractions of a cent per stream is just too small, to the point where the number of plays per month to get a performer the equivalent of a living wage is quite unreachable.
As is usual on the internet, the only parties making any real money are the aggregators, which in this case would be the steaming services and the record companies.
On the bright side, it should force some of the artists/bands to go out there and play more live music for a change. It would also mean that people who will go into music industry is because they enjoy it rather than for money (nothing wrong if you worked for it and earned it by skill and determination).
Is just how much the labels and rights orgs are ripping them off.
What they claim to pay is vastly at odds with what the rights orgs claim to be taking in, as a f'inctance and what spotify show as listener data is also vastly at odds with what rights orgs claim
(Short version: If you're an obscure writer you're lucky to get 50p/year and they refuse to write cheques for less thana fiver so you're shit out of luck. Spotify is showing that these obscure writers aren't so obscure after all AND how the rights orgs are pocketing 90% of what's paid to them as "internal expenses")
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
