Call me old fashioned if you like, but i dislike systems that immiserate artists and creators, and which are deliberately rigged against the little guy.
What really winds me up are comfortable, entitled middle class types waving the flag for this system simply because it means their kids can get music (practically) for free.
What I don’t understand is how streaming services - and Spotify is but one - are allowed to pay so little to artists. Surely it is up to the record companies/publishers to give permission, or perhaps the body (I forget what they’re called in Britain - that licences public playing of musi, to issue a licence or initiate action agains them for streaming without a licence. To me it is the fault of the bodies who are supposed to look after the rights of artists, not the fault of those that provide a legal streaming service at low cost.
IIRC it all started with the likes of Napster, but that was illegal and was indeed pursued and closed down. If the answer was to allow various other parties such a Spotify provide a streaming service providing negligible payment to artists, why do people criticise the service providers rather than those permitting???
Oh, and what evidence is there that Spotify deliberately rigs against the little guy? My guess is tgey set a low rate for everyone, then (if it is the case they don’t pay a flat rate) bigger artists negotiate more. If so, isn’t it the big guys that are rigging it against the small…
I assumed that streaming services set the rate, so artists either sign or cut bait…
I assume also that the major established artists have made their money so aren’t as bothered - or they’re willing to take the pittance so it keeps them ‘in with the kids’ as it were.
Most of the young people I know, sadly, don’t give a tuppenny fig for how less well-known artists are supposed to make a living. Music’s essentially free as far as they’re concerned. Some adults too, or they want to pay the least possible (he says, cynically…)
Napster still lives
They (Napster) pay quite well too - trouble is, harly anyone uses it…
Ok - but not in the original illegal form (at least, so I understood)
To answer yor last point first – it is. It’s blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever had any dealings with the biz.
To answer your penultimate point, no Spotify don’t pay a flat rate per stream. Your payment is determined by your share of the pie on any given day. So, say if you released a single that happened to be released the same day as Ed Sheeran’s, you would get very little.
Or, to put it another way… Say your track gets 1,000 plays every day. Some days you might get £0.60, some days you’ll get fcuk all - depending on how many people are playing megstars like Sheeran, Rihanna, etc.
Do you undersatand?
Does that system sound fair to you @Innocent_Bystander?
Its only the end of the beginning of spotify.
If people complain about how much they pay, well pull it from the platform. Who cares.
The short answer to your question is, because they can (and big record companies have always tipped off artists). It is nothing to do with the rights societies (PRS, PPL, MCPS etc in the UK, ASCAP, BMI etc in USA and various others elsewhere) who collect publishing and mechanical royalties from radio stations, TV, etc and distributing said royalties to artists.
My first reaction is indeed that no it doesn’t seem at all fair. But what about the point made in the remainder of my post, which was the main thrust of it? Surely the fault lies with those permitting it, firstly by licensing what many people regard as paying peanuts, and secondly in such licensing allowing unfair cutting of the pie?
Edit: your post above crossed mine. So the record companies sre the true culprit it seems.
You are Daniel Eck and I claim my £5.
Yep. They always have been, really.
So why direct your ire at Spotify and/or those using it, rather than at the record companies?
Because users are complicit.
Lots of people on this forum make a big play of how much they love music. Not enough, it seems, to actually pay a fair price for it, however.
Why, out of interest, are you so keen to defend Spotify?
Joe Rogan’s reply to the accusation of misinformation. Very intelligent response and certainly a different version that’s been portrayed in the media. If you think about it Young is basically saying censor this guy or else.
What’s a fair price for music? I value a few artists highly and would be willing to pay a considerable amount to access/own their music. For the vast majority of artists I place somewhere between very little to no value on their music. Might sound harsh, but that’s what my music purchases reflected pre-streaming.
Well, most artists selling on Bandcamp allow you to pay more if you wish. Or you could buy direct from their web store. Or you could buy two copies of an album from a retailer, keep one for yourself and donate the other to a charity shop. Do whatever, but why not put your money where your mouth is?
I don’t get the hate for Spotify and streaming @TheKevster, but maybe I’m just missing the point.
I’m willing to pay a few hundred pounds a year on music. Pre-steaming I would spend this on a small number of CDs, generally playing it safe by buying well known artists. This would do little to support new artists and generally seemed to lead to a very small number of artists (and record labels) earning an obscene amount of money. Now in the current world of streaming my spend is going across a more diverse group of artists as I’m exploring and listening to more new music. I’m also spending more on music now than I ever did in the past. This would seem to be a good thing for the music industry.
I can the short comings of streaming with how much of the money I spend actually finds its way back to the artists I listen to. Most seems to end up in the pockets of the streaming company or record label, but this doesn’t seem too different from the past where only the biggest artists seemed to receive a good share from record sales/deals.
In summary, the problem doesn’t seem to be with streaming, but with the music industry itself, but then that’s nothing new.
This is something I’ve noticed too: people with £100,000 systems saying how wonderful it is to be able to listen to all the music they want for £15 a month. Can you get all your monthly food for £15? All your monthly wine? The majority seem to want something for nothing. A good conversation with musicians would, I feel, be enlightening to many. But I suspect we are pissing in the wind.
