Hey everyone, thanks for your input. I want to add a friendly reminder that unfortunately, with Spotify becoming a massive share of most independent musician's income, "boycotting Spotify" just punches an open wound. It'll be interesting to see what the future holds, and I do think that at some point a new union will need to be formed or (my wet dream) copyright legislation is overhauled and modernized. Most importantly, it is YOU, my fans, followers, listeners, and even pirates, who make it possible for me to do what I do. The music industry will always change, but listeners and musicians will always be glued together through those changes. ❤
Man, I'm so torn on the music economy - on the one hand, I'm very happy music is more democratic, and I get a chance to hear all the great musical minds all around the world who would never have gotten the opportunity for a record contract in the old days. On the other hand, I do sympathize a lot with musicians in today's music economy. A part of that is I think a problem with market saturation - and the fact that purchasing power does certainly not rise proportionally to the amount and diversity of offerings. Real wages have been stagnant for a while now - so purchasing power doesn't increase - and at the same time more artists are entering the scene, and this year more than ever are in dire need of a reliable stream of income. I used to buy whatever I could via Bandcamp - your albums included. They were great for discovering music and I'd heard mostly good things from fellow musicians about their business model and contracts. I still do that - and I seldomly stream at all. I feel you ought to get a lot more - so that you can maintain both a steady income stream and not neglect your health and family. I don't know whether market-dynamics in the music streaming economy can support that... The direct crowdfunding model I feel is not an optimal solution - but it does have a lot of benefits in terms of fewer middle men and a more reliable stream of income with fewer up-front commitments. I would love for you to be able to make music *and* have a physically and emotionally healthy life - you produce some of the most quality content anywhere, so me and I'm pretty sure many of your other fans would love to be able to support that more directly.
I disagree. I would say boycott Spotify to support your fave artists on Bandcamp, real record stores and RUclips based on your financial circumstances and music listening bandwidth
Really appreciate this video and your nuanced perspective! Where do you fit Bandcamp in as an alternative to streaming on Spotify? It's not a replacement for endless streaming, but so many (fellow poor) consumers seem to not even know about it - and that it provides a route to paying significantly more directly to artists. But for those that do and care, it seems like the healthy direction to go in. Side note - after discovering you through illegal downloading and reading that text file, it was an honor to book you for a show, all those years ago, back in Seattle, and actually hand you a chunk of change and help sell some albums. The music economy was and is fucked. Hope we can get back to more direct engagement like that again soon, though 🙃.
Could not agree with you more. I feel like this video should be taught in music/music tech departments everywhere. Would be a great education resource.
One big issue with Spotify is how it calculates revenue share. Even if I never listen to Taylor Swift, if she gets 90% of all streams, she and her label get 90% of the artists’ share of my and everyone else’s subscription. If an indie artist sees their plays grow but Taylor Swift’s plays grow faster, their revenue will drop. Other issues probably exist as well. It is fine in theory that Spotify doesn’t guarantee a price-per-play (it’s gotta be proportional to revenue in some way), but it’s not okay that my money doesn’t support the artists I listen to as much as it supports the megastars that are already raking it in. A “user-centric” model needs to be adopted. It would direct my money to the artists I listen to and make it less easy for stream farming. I will switch streaming services the instant I learn any competitor has implemented such a model.
Bingo. I'll only ad that... the reason why this hasn't already happened very likely means its incredibly expensive/challenging to start something like that. And those costs weren't covered in this video either. I do hope someone steps to the plate.
I had no idea that’s how it worked. So basically ontop of the fact that algorithms benefit labels, they benefit from screwing people even more by screwing the profits. And then they also own shares . It’s sickening how unfair it all is. They buy their top spots, on radio, Spotify aswell. So they can say they had a record high etc. then they give themselves awards at their irrelevant award shows. The whole thing is a sham
Aren't you describing the very "A “user-centric” model" already with the first paragraph?! If Taylor Swift gets 90% of all the streams, then she rightly should get 90% of the money allocated to artists, because it would mean if you listened to another artist, 9 other listeners listened to Taylor Swift! The users (listeners) can listen to whatever they want that is available, and yes, often due to marketing a listener may be pushed to listen to some of the bigger acts. Big pop stars will get most of the streams, it's why they are "big" pop stars! None of them started big, but became big over time, but even they complain of being screwed over, most seem to overlook the money spent on marketing them. It all comes down to this, it's a business, it's about making money, and everyone involved wants their slice of the pie, some greedier than others but every other platform will yield the same results over time.
@@bennyceca “9 other listeners listened to Taylor Swift” Yes, and their subscription should go to her proportionally. 90% not 99%. In the current model, if there were 100 users and 99 of them listen to A exclusively but 1 users listens to B exclusively, the payout to A and B depends on how much that one user listens to B. Artist A brings in the first set of users, accounting for 99x the subscription revenue, but if the total streams from B is greater than the streams for A then B would get a bigger payout. The 99 users are paying mostly for B because of the 1 heavy listener of B. The user centric model doesn’t have this quirk. Obviously, in reality, the popular artists that currently actually do make money off streaming have large fanbases, so things aren’t that different between the two models for them. However, artists with smaller fanbases get their small user-centric cut of the pie cut down even smaller by the share-of-plays-centric model. Switching models impacts a very small proportion of Taylor Swift’s revenue base but a much larger proportion of smaller artists’ revenue bases. In the share-of-plays model, the platform is incentivized to expand its catalogue to niches in order to bring in new users and give the lion’s share of their subscription revenue to the top artists, rather than the artists that drew in the new users. Is that really a model that makes sense to you?
@@Kebin-Blebin We'd need to see more data. I have a suspicion those of us who don't listen to Taylor Swift actually have more streams (per user, on average) than those who do, as we probably listen more to more music. If that's the case this system benefits the artists we listen to relatively to the system you propose. Neither solves the problems presented in the video though.
Ha! That is such a cop out. How the hell are you gonna be a musician if you waste all your time working a job you hate just to survive? You can NOT do both. First it will kill your music, then it will kill you.
Yes. But I absolutely do not want my artistry to be crippled by having to work a day job (that doesn’t give half a fuck about me). There’s only 24 hours in a day, and if 50/65% of it is resting/preparing for that day job, how would I be getting the most out of my mind to be an even better artist?
What I love about Benn is the fact that he is ALWAYS on point, never ever gets agressive about something and always gives constructive criticism without hate. One of the artists that has brains and uses them. Much respect and hope to hear new music from you!
As much as you were a Spotify white knight, I am today a Bandcamp white knight. I honestly am struggling to understand why Bandcamp's business model isn't loved by all artists AND users. I myself use Spotify because it's convenient, but it bothers me that the money that I spend on Spotify go into a big mount of money that gets redistributed mostly to people I never listened to, while I know exactly where the money I spent on Bandcamp went. The reason I fail to understand why Bandcamp isn't talked about and used more is porbably because I lack the insight, but I'll always be happier to pay 2/3 dollars for an album by an artist I love and know they received about 80% of that than, throwing my money in the air and letting the wind carry it to whoever. That just doesn't feel good to me.
I love Bandcamp as a user with no real idea how it treats the artists. I have no problem paying $8 for an album if I can listen to it first and being able to decide what I think it's worth is pretty amazing. It's my goto store for music. Also it has a huge plus over spotify or any other streaming platform that I can download the music as a regular audio file as well as listen in the app. This whole "pay to access" instead of "pay to own" trend is really infuriating me. If they really have a 80/20 split, that's great. That's beyond great!
@@hrnekbezucha as of Wikipedia info (and their site) they take 15% plus transaction fees but the amount they take drops down to 10% after you sold 5000$ worth of music. And yeah, I also love the pay to own method!
I think bandcamp would be bigger if their app/UI was more streamlined in terms of getting to the things you want, queing up your music, making playlists, organizing a library, suggesting similar music etc. Spotify's UI/ease of use and suggestion features are what make it attractive. I would definitely dedicate more time/support to bandcamp if it was easier to navigate.
@@tombourguet3604 I concur wholeheartedly. Lol The UI feels less intuitive, and navigating the genres of music feels like a chore to me. That's not to say that Spotify's algorithm for presenting similar music is perfect - it's just better. Bandcamp maintains the wonderful spirit of a company that hasn't been devoured by shareholder capitalism. It hasn't been enveloped in the shroud of greed. It won't last forever. Many company's start out with an ethos, something they hold above profits. An ethical decision made by the instigators of said business. But all is lost when it expands and the old business model provides less income than the new one. Bandcamp is great for the time being, but it won't last forever. I also use Last FM as a scrobbler for music, it tracks my listens and gives recommendations and the like. It works better than either Spotify of Bandcamp. Also as an amateur artist I find it pretty difficult to dip my toes into the industry in any way. I don't want a digital distribution service like Distrokid to rip me off. I also don't want to be sucked into a corporate deal. I wish I could upload music casually and be tipped as listeners see fit. I use a combination of: Spotify, Soulseek, SoundCloud, Bandcamp and Last FM. I wish I wasn't feeding so much into a corporate entity.
Pat W. Always. Many artists I listen to have at max 200-300 monthly listeners, some as low as 6, and it's so hard to find their music in the search function even though I have the exact match and a history of listening to that artist
What? I have literally never had a problem searching for obscure artists on spotify. The search function always works 100% of the time for me. And I don't even listen to mainstream music very much.
On topic: This video was really informative for me as someone who is just beggining to understand the music industry world. Off topic fanboy-ism: YOU ARE THE FLASHBULB OH MY GOD. Arrival to an empty room is one of my favorite songs ever, period.
The best place to get music is -torrent- Bandcamp, next coming CD from publishers, and then rest of cloud services, like iTunes, and etc. If you want to publish music - it's Bandcamp or contract with publishers, but publishers ofthen require exclusive rights to publish your tracks / albums (only this publisher will be able to publish it and you can't).
I really feel like spotify is a humongous pyramid-scheme. About three million creators making music, with the profits being distributed upwards and the winners being in rough order major-label signees, the largest labels and Daniel Ek. What really cheeses me off is the fact that a stream is not worth the same for a small creator and a big one. Me streaming "Dance Monkey" is worth more than streaming "Undiscovered Colors" for some arcane reason involving the words "market share, virality and listener engagement", which translates to "because we say so you, f you - it makes us the most money".
I'd personally use Bandcamp more if it had some better algorithms built in to help me discover similar music from artists I like. As a consumer, I adore Spotify for how easy it is to find more music from artists I've never even heard of.
@@Woodside235 Discovering simimar things isn't the biggest deal to me, but the outright terrible search algorhythm. The fact that you can't get results for "Artist - Title" is annoying, that one has to use an external search engine for that...but i still think bandcamp is the best. The idea is the right one :)
@@voynich7825 I've never had a problem finding specific songs by searching "artist - title," even from super niche artists. I wonder if the search behavior is different for Premium?
The best change that could be made to the streaming model is basing it around musicians and listeners, rather than executives and share holders. A more horizontal business model where the chief exec is isn't worth $3.4 billion and the profit per stream doesn't keep decreasing
I agree here, the arbitrary rate that they pay you per stream should at least be regulated by the industry, it's a joke at present that we ( the artists ) are being thrown the leftover scraps whilst Spotify are feasting from a table of food that we supply.
This is a byproduct in all industries that are based on capitalism growth model. As long as we have this system in place there seems to be no way around it. The next platform will just be yet another horizontal business model unless we're moving towards web3 / blockchain / decentralisation. There's pro's and con's there as well but it feels to me it will take a couple of generations until we see a real movement to that.
From waht I see as a consumer, spotify is a model that fits how consumers interpret as music. Albums became more and more ethereal because practicality of having your collection anytime in your pocket. Despite people hating the media, is not the media that transformed this, but technology did, as you said. I love having rare CDs in my collection, but is true that with the amount of time I have free, I can only listen music during traveling and in certain moments in my house that I can multitask as I want. And I feel that is how most middle class (or striving to be) are nowadays. What someone can hate about Spotify is that for convenience, the cost of the service is way lower than it should be. Also, I feel that is not trasnparent enough about why the price the artist recibe and why. But also, I have to be honest: I discovered Telefon Tel Aviv through spotify. I listen a lot more of independant music just because now I have access to it and even can buy their music because of it. Nobody should underestimate the fact that you could make great art, but to make a living, people need to know you first (that also, is the main point of abuse from labels and companies). I got to you because of youtube, and now I hear an album from you once a day (and still trying to understand how to make glitchy drums on protools to work). Now I want to buy your albums, but have to be honest: I live in Argentina, and my anual wage is about 4000 USD (going through a hard ressesion). Though, I'll take the oportunity you give and pay what I can, because music is worth the money.
Well, that's better than the 15 cents I've made last month. I've made more money off of a one-off remix for a label than I ever have off of my own songs.
I think that a little thing Spotify could do to help artists to increase their revenue is to provide some space for artists to advertise their merch and provide a direct access to make donations or subsribe to monthly tipping. Something like some widgets giving listeners a direct access and visibility of a merch page (Big Cartel? Bandcamp?), or donation/tipping platform (Teepee? Patreon?). From what I understand, many artists combine a lot of different sources and types of revenue, the issue being that they are usually all spread on different platforms. Since Spotify is providing a centralized interface, they could allocate some space for this. Not too invasive, but at the chosing of the artist and to encourage people to directly support. If Spotify does not yet have the money to pay fairly, at least they should make efforts to make it easy for listerners who are willing to give money directly to the artists they like and want to support.
I'm not sure if it went away, but they used to have links for merch and such on artists pages. They also used to advertise gig dates (obviously that isn't active right now). Personally, I've bought several t-shirts and albums from links on Spotify artist pages. Not justifying Spotify's behavior or anything. Just pointing out that they did something like this for a spell.
Hell when it comes to merch they could even make it really easy for people to impulse buy it while vibing to the music. Spotify already has the users card details and address there is no reason they couldn't add a convenient option to just buy it on the spot and charge a small premium for saving people the job of signing up with some external web store. I think a lot of people would probably pay a couple of bucks extra for the convenience of being able to order via their spotify account, then you have people like me that might actually be inclined to buy in the first place if it didn't involve a bunch of time to add my data to yet another data breech risk just to buy one item. This way the artist is still getting the full purchase price they were selling it for too, spotify is just charging the user an extra few euros for making it more convenient by essentially acting like a concierge to source it from the seller in the background on their behalf.
@@seraphina985 Selling merch isn't just about making a transaction, it is also about stock management and product selection/preview. But I agree that they could perhaps help payment by acting as a reliable intermediary, that would require the external websites to implement the necessary interfaces. However, at the end it remains to tell if the loss of profit (or increase in price) would suit both the artists and buyers.
I'd love to see what would happen if you combined Spotify's ease and seamlessness of finding new music and making playlists with Bandcamp's payouts and store integration. Something where you can find a track, listen to it for a while, and then buy the digital copy/physical CD's/merch/tour ticket(?) to support it all in one shot. You could even have some thing where the more you stream it the cheaper that album gets for you, like how iTunes allows you to complete an album for less if you've bought one of the songs on it already.
@@spiritlevelstudios I agree, that's my point. All this so-called disrupting just ends up being new and innovative ways to rip off the people that create your product.
Woah. About two weeks ago I was tearing my hair out for an hour or so trying to remember the name of an electronic band who had an album and particularly a tune which opened said album that I was obsessed with over ten years ago. Fast forward to tonight and I stumble upon your great channel, hear you say the words "Telefon Tel Aviv" and it all clicks... Immolate Yourself being the album and The Birds being the track. I never owned a copy back in the day so I just picked it up on Bandcamp. Thank you!
The problem is exactly what you said: music, and plenty of other art forms, deserve to exist and be experienced by people regardless of the profit motive. There's a lot of stuff out there that's beautiful, that we can't have more of because "it doesn't make money". We deserve to live in a world where we can stop worrying about it.
Thanks for making this video. I started putting my stuff out six months ago using DistroKid. There's really no reason to be optimistic about anything but your video somehow still made me feel better about the future. Making the inner workings transparent is always the first step in making things better. And you did a terrific job at clearing things up without blaming or hurting anyone. I really respect that.
I personally went from being one of, 'the last', who were still buying physical, to eventually joining everyone else, but I recently looked into the financial side of things/ which you talk about in detail in this video, and now buy predominantly digital, with some physical sprinkled in (I'm a sucker for special editions and bonus DVD's). It's great being able to go and listen to an album I didn't have enough money to buy as a teenager back in the day, but now as an adult, I can't help but notice that kids aren't experiencing the, 'magic', of getting that new album from the local store, going home, and listening to whole thing, as a linear experience, as they were intended. It makes me kind of sad.
So true. Having everything all at once at hand takes away the magic. For me just radio recording a tape with part of a song I loved meant the world. Things change fast 🤣
I'm 23 now. As a teenager I would hunt online for metal albums that appealed to me. I didn't really stream any of it, and I definitely listened to albums through. Maybe it's not quite as magical but finding some of my favorite albums was exciting, and it's obvious that these albums are so much better as a whole. I think there are still music loving kids who search far and wide for amazing music and who feel some kind of magic listening to them for the first time. Shit I guess my point is that the magic is in the music, not the medium. I'd love to hear you disagree with that though, because I never got to experience exactly what you're talking about.
So long as musicians and listeners continue to opt for centralized solutions vs decentralized solutions, we will always face the issue of too much power in the hands of a few. The good news is there are decentralized streaming services!
I just found this channel and checked your music out and it turns out I've been listening to you for over 10 years! Your music has helped me so much thank you for existing and I love your channel!
That is as long as you turn a blind eye to the fact that wear and tear on vehicles is a thing, but then you will be in for a shock when the inevitable repair bill that takes up most of your "earnings" and then some eventually comes in. Turns out cars rack up repair bills at a fairly large and constant rate while running albeit it is harder to predict when said bills will become due, but they will have to be paid at some time that is a guarantee especially if you are driving the vehicle around all day every day. Took my friend almost a year doing it before he started to question that and realised that his net earnings were essentially £0 for those 12 months after factoring in fuel, wear and tear on the vehicle and the higher insurance costs etc. It is really deceptive though as the income is modest but frequent while most of the expenses are large but infrequent so it is hard to get a sense how much you are actually getting without sitting down and doing all the calculations over a longer period like a year or so.
Perhaps someone already asked, or perhaps you already have, but I would love to see you do a similar breakdown of the bandcamp model and do a compare/contrast. There's a clear opinion from the comments I read here but I think having a deep dive and presenting the findings would be well worth it
To answer the Spotify question, I've never really made money from my music. I haven't ever seen Spotify as a possible source of income, and see it more as an "exposure" thing for people too lazy to hit up Bandcamp. It's always the first thing people ask: "Are you on Spotify?" That being said, I have a full time job outside of music, so it's not a stressor for me to not get paid, regardless of my anxiety about always being productive and generating new music. Do I understand why people are upset? Absolutely. Can I identify with the same pressure points? Not at all. I guess I approach the issue with empathy, then. That being said, the Groupees deal is awesome, and I'm glad you're doing it again! Any new stuff from the last time it was released?
just gonna drop my 2 cents here. hate is too strong, i guess -- also it is known to be damaging psychologically. rather we should abandon spotify, as we should try to abandon and avoid other streaming-only services with no ability to buy directly from the author. this "service" trend is really damaging to the individuals and is beneficial to the global corporations.
Im also gonna drop my 2 cents here... All 2 cents i made from spotify, you can have it. Lol jk. I enjoy having my music on streaming services no matter how much money or how many listens I get so I can't agree with you. I think its useful to have many avenues to distribute your music. A lot of people consume and listen to music almost exclusively through streaming services, so when you abandon spotify or similar services you are abandoning the possibility of those people coming across your music or steadily listening to it. Its about networking and tying together your bandcamp link, merch link, and website etc all together while also giving the listener the option to conveniently listen on spotify as well. I have bought a lot of albums but I listen to them on spotify more than I spin them so I am contributing in 2 ways for the same releases. It sounds like your approach is if enough people avoid streaming services then they will die off, but thats not reality. It's the same mentality of a vegan or vegetarian who thinks they are saving the whole animal kingdom. (Nothing wrong with being vegan or vegetarian I just hate the whole superiority complex some people have about it)
@@visualsynthetics9882 well, i've gotta believe in the ability of each and every one of us to have the most digital independency we can. i understand where you're coming from, but in my view it is better to not consume streaming
@@arrtemfly most people will always be conformist in stupid ways, the replier to your comment seems to be essentially saying, so why fight against it? Well, it comes down to the life you want to live and the world you want to create, as I think you are basically saying. Of course, it’s foolish advice if you are trying to be super popular or make all your income from one improbably source..but that’s not most of us, so just let it go and do what you want rather than buying into a vision that downgrades reality.
I'm at 10:45, and you have just mentioned "socialised copyright", I'm definitely going to look this up. I have been idly thinking about this for years. Fair compensation of creators for copyright, and I think even more transformatively patents, without them retaining control. Also, branding should be a way to identify the producer, not the right to profit from advertising
check out "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella (free online via PDF). it's from a libertarian perspective, and a bit more broadly based on criticizing IP in general. a quick and interesting read
Hey Benn, I just wanna let you know that your album Soundtrack to a vacant life really had a huge impact on my life. It's beautiful and delicate. I especially like Warm hands in cold fog and the 7 last tracks. Suspended in a sunbeam is brilliant. Keep up the good work! ❤️🙏
Bandcamp is a pretty good model. People buy and create their own streams and artists and labels get a much higher cut of the proceeds. If they can get some more convenience worked into the platform, it could prove to be competition for Spotify.
Hi Benn - just to let you know, I'll be one of those several hundred thousand people who listen to you every month. You are amazing with production right up there with my favorites: Tycho, Bonobo, etc... that's where you are. Thank you for making music, I hope that the insanity of the current business models doesn't stop you (or others) from continuing. You've inspired me not to give up through your videos - and I thank you for that.
Benn, your openness, candour and honesty talking about the music industry issues are amazing. You have my greatest respect. Thanks for making these videos.
I think creatives need to take some responsibility for this, as they held up streaming and other online activities as subsidiary and auxiliary to live performance. The point being is that if you didn't have live performance, and now you don't, then you couldn't pay the bills but you could then so you didn't fight for it. And now the fight is apparent. Should a creative that has 50k regular RUclips views have a middle-class income? I would think yes. Should a person that streams millions of songs have a middle-class income? Yeah. But we all played a part of devaluing that by saying, that is OK because I can sell T-shirts and I can play gigs. But I don't think a person that has that many regular viewing or millions of streams should be in a position to seek out live performance to up an income, at this stage a solid income from that should be a given. But we didn't fight for that. And that is the fight we should be having. I don't know if the solution is a tax on the internet, putting all media on the blockchain, or even AI systems acting as brokers. And a UBI would go a long way to help so that an artist can afford to struggle to find an audience that pays, and supplement an income once an audience is found and grown. But every single one of us needs to be having this discussion and working to a solution. Because it is not OK to say to creatives, that have a massive audience across a range of online companies, now go and make some money playing out your content in a live setting - because in a technology media age it is the live performance income that should be subsidiary or auxiliary to online activities. And because that was OK for a time we sat back and we got the whole setup backwards. It is not OK now, and it never was. And only by having a fight to end all fights will it ever be OK.
I think it's very easy to look back with hindsight and ascribe a narrative that this is partially the responsibility of creators as if we were all one big monolithic entity, and retroactively characterise all artists as holding up streaming and other online activities as subsidiary and auxiliary to live performance, or not fighting for better, when there was no such consensus, and no plan. Coming out of the disruption of early-internet piracy, all parts of the industry were in confusion about how to survive it, and artists still had their hands full with creating. I don't think any artist genuinely thought 'oh it's OK because I can still pay gigs'. This has been a slow transformation in tiny steps, through all of this confusion, and no union of musicians large enough, or unified voice from all creatives to really make an impact on what was happening. And almost no-one could have predicted it would go this way. In the old music industry model artists were also at the bottom and have had precious little power in the dynamic. So how then could they really have collectively fought for better? Essentially we've been gaslit by those with the most power for a long time. In the 70s it was the labels, now it's Spotify and Live Nation. I really think it's a convenient fiction to ignore the overwhelming pressure that the big platforms and major players have put on artists over the last forty years.
@@wildernesshymnal - I agree that musicians have always been held at the bottom, but I see that as a separate issue. We are a technology media society. And over the last years I can't count the amount of times I've heard it said, you make money gigging in music today. They shouldn't be prescribed to that. The film industry didn't say, you need to be releasing in the cinema to make money - they created a new model and exploited that. Until we collectivaly get together and get off Spotify, Apple and others, find and exploit that alternative then this will go on and on. Does a creative need a middleman? The relationship doesn't need to be anything other than artist going direct to audience, with 100% revenue - and that takes a small skillset today. The quicker we do that the quicker we will see the big companies come around to 10% of something, rather than 90% of nothing. Creative people can make money without the music industry, the music industry doesn't exist without creatives. Many have got this whole setup wrong. But we do have hindsight now how fragile a gigging income is compared to online. Covid isn't a friend, but has taught us a lesson that changes everything. Online media technology isn't new, and we need to start investing the weight of creative output within that, if it pays then even better. But it won't till we enforce that.
I have a unique perspective as both a musician with multiple projects on Spotify, and a professional DJ of twenty years. First things first, I've been a paid member of Spotify since 2011. I've made maybe a few dollars in 9 years. But I don't think of Spotify as a service that is paying me. I think of it as the ultimate service for music discovery. I hated Pandora, because it has an algorithm that guides your listening. I don't need a bot to tell me what I should listen to. I just want the freedom of finding a new artist, and organically discovering dozens of similar artists in a matter of minutes at my OWN PACE. I can honestly say that I wouldn't have found 80% of the music I've become obsessed with over the past decade, w/out having Spotify. And those artists wouldn't be enjoying the promotion that comes from a professional DJ playing your music for a crowd of hundreds of people (often with some patrons actually walking up to ask for more info about the song). But perhaps the greatest thing for me about Spotify, is how easy it is to access music from other countries. Music that would have cost a fortune to have imported. Such as 80's Japanese City Pop. One of my favorite genres of music, but not an easy genre to collect if you aren't rolling in dough. Spotify has made it possible for me to not only find a few of these artists songs (in HQ recordings no less), but each of these artists literally has almost their entire discography available to listen to through Spotify now. Same thing applies to small bands I used to love and lost touch with, and all of their music is now out of print. But for the most part, I can find these artists easily on Spotify as well. I feel like you really hit the nail on the head with the comment about people bitching about not getting paid for streams when they hardly actually sell any physical media to begin with. Too many younger artists are unaware of how messed up the music industry was BEFORE streaming, They fail to appreciate all of the positive aspects of no longer having to depend on a label and being completely independent. The idea of a bedroom producer having their random song featured in a famous persons tweet, literally making them famous overnight, was not something that even existed prior to the streaming revolution. Anyways, I thought this video was great, and it's nice to hear a pov from someone who understands the ever changing landscape of the music industry.
This was interesting. Thank you for sharing! And also: I fantasize about a future where we can go to live shows again and I then go and experience you playing live with Telefon Tel Aviv in a glorious collaboration.
Love your video! Its a fascinating perspective to listen to - one of the first videos on my channel was about the same topic as well - although I'm doing marketing at a record label while playing in a band, so it's kind of combining both viewpoints. I referenced the exact statement that you picked as well, but the way I understood it, it was less of a "produce more material", but rather meant as "be smarter with how you release things". I think what we're seeing is a shift in how things are being done - how music is released. While the internet & consumers tend to move quicker, the industry really struggles to keep up with them and I think the biggest problem is the concept of an album release itself. With most albums we're talking 30 minutes + which is A TON of time that a person has to spend with the content online. Adding to that is the fact that most artists just pick a few singles to promote their album - the rest of it is sitting idle on the album page - not getting playlisted, not being promoted, just "filling time" so the work can be called an album. So naturally these are just streamed by people who know the artist, know the album or really want to hear it - BUT they're not drawing in new people, which naturally leads to less streams. What I'm thinking needs to happen in the industry, is that people start to think of every song as a single. The process has already started but this is where I think that Quote comes in. Instead of releasing a new album every 3 years, an artist releases new music every Month over a year for example. It just makes more sense nowadays, but then again - that doesn't change the fact that Spotify slashed your income, which sucks. Great video! I just subscribed!
I think it would be cool if Spotify would add an extra layer to the service where artists are also paid independently of plays. Maintain the old model, but create a new Patreon-like layer where people can voluntarily increase their monthly payment by a few bucks to be paid directly to their favorite artists. For example, the podcast collective Maximum Fun solicits donations from listeners in $5 intervals with no ceiling, and then each listener can divide their donation up among any number of network podcasts. The result is that I can optimize my personal "bang for buck". I can pay $5 for 10 podcasts, $10 for my favorite 3. Or I can pay $20 for 1 podcast. Any combo I want. Spotify would most definitely benefit from a system like this, however, I'm sure there would be new opportunities for abuse. Interestingly, if Spotify makes its users' streaming/library data public, a smart company could technically do this without Spotify's involvement. I'd probably need lawyers to sign off on that idea before I touched it with a 10 foot pole, though.
I knew something was up with Telefon Tel Aviv and Spotify but didn’t know the details or significance until now. I appreciate you sharing this. Your contributions to music are equally as appreciated and your perspective is a welcome one; thanks!
I really hate it how every field of the economy (especially in USA where services too are private and about profit) just ends up effectively exploiting the people who do the work that results in the profits for the companies, in this case, the musicians who make the music streamed on the platforms. That needs to change! This video made me so sad and angry. Nobody should need to work so much it hurts their health and well-being. It Isn’t right.
@@AJ-di4df yes, but they didnt create the art itself. that platform would entirely go to waste without the artists, and the business model the platform perpetuates hurts artists.
@@SorchaSublime yes but the platform that invested HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS creates the optimal experience to send audio media. If you dont like their rates or business model, dont upload. It's a choice. If no one uploads they will be forced to adapt.
I dont get why people would hate spotify. Its an amazing service. Just music sans all the crap. Do we seriously want to go the streaming service route and buy 10 subscriptions in the future from different music services? If artists want more money - fine. Id easily pay double the price im paying nor for spotify.
I have a whole lot of thoughts about streaming music services, but almost everything boils down to the fundamental issue of commodification, and the absurdity of attempting to substitute price for subjective value in the realm of music/art. Any way we try to address this problem in a purportedly "market" economy, we have to contend with (among many other things) the fact that artistic endeavors don't fit neatly into materialist definitions of a commodity-that is, it is next to impossible to calculate the value, utility, exchange value, and price of a piece of music, for example-and then also with the fact that, if we as a society want art to exist, creators have to be able to exchange their artistic labor for other commodities (shelter, food, medicine, etc.) and their work needs to be compensated for in some fashion. You grazed this topic in the video, but the reification of information/ideas/art into intellectual property is an already shaky compromise between the artist's (and their consumer's) perception of the value of an artistic work and the economic necessity of detaching the work from the artist in order to exchange some version of it for capital...and it sucks that this is the method our society has decided is how artists should be compensated for their work. I have even more trouble describing the exact processes and forms of commodity fetishism in streaming music/video services, since it is already difficult to understand art as a commodity. The availability of a large catalog and variety of recorded music almost certainly helps services like Spotify and Apple Music remain appealing to users even if some of their favorite recordings are absent; hyper-commercialization has created lots of effectively interchangeable music; we haven't even touched on the fact that Spotify was at least once caught putting "fake" music in their playlists to avoid paying out royalties to external rights holders. Unfortunately, my solutions for these problems all involve some radical reworking of IP laws, and some kind of guaranteed income for artists that would hopefully-eventually-lead to the decommodification of art. That, or the total abolition of the value-form... So I guess I don't hate Spotify, but I don't have anything good to say about the situation that led to Spotify.
I love how you reiterated how this is purely from your perspective. It's hard to imagine what any person thinks any one person deserves for their work in the music industry. But what seems clear to me is that those who have a story to back up their music can make a bit more income through RUclips. Producers like Andrew Huang collaborate with others and discuss their music and their production efforts. In the same way, I think attaching your human qualities (opinions , observations, experiences) on RUclips as a companion to your music is a good approach for this social media marketing landscape.
This is so on point. Agreed with your whole analysis here. As an artist that has worked with both larger labels and also released music independently, you absolutely can make money on Spotify but it's getting harder and harder. You need to be extremely consistent and dedicated with frequent regular independent releases.
As a user I really like Spotify, it gives me access to new and old music and makes me aware of new artists. As a producer/artist, honestly, I hate it. I hate that they've come along as the "savior of the music business" and just made it worse. I hate the whole getting on playlist thing and trying to work out how that works and the quantity over quality that's now required. It's no longer music, it's simply a commodity. I'm also still trying to work out who the fuck gave them monetised access to my whole back catalogue too. I didn't' sign anything to say that they could do that and then pay me an arbitrary ( and tiny ) rate per stream. I dunno, not a fan at all really. I feel like I'm being milked by this company whilst they grow exponentially richer. You can't win though, you just have to use them nowadays like some music business sucker punch to the nuts. Gotcha, deal with it! I mean, people complain about major record deals and artists taking back control, but hey, I've been in a few in my time, at least you actually got paid for your work back then. ( FTR I'm talking about the pre-itunes days here )
Thank you @BennJordan for speaking on one of the most important topics of our time. You have said what has been on the minds of a lot of us musicians for some years now, and delivered it most eloquently! Indeed this system Spotify came up with is highly unfair & payola-ridden, and even though it’s “democratized” getting one’s music out to the masses, we still all deserve at least a minimum wage. Thank you also for sharing your own experience, it was great to see how long you’ve been performing, and why you’re worth your salt. Hopefully this video can educate more people about this issue. Keep up the good work man!
just found out about your channel, never heard about you or your music before but really like the realism behind the things you're saying. really great video man
I hate Spotify because they kept removing features that I found to be really useful, and I've been paying them for the privilege of getting fewer and fewer features with lower and lower performance. For years. So arguably it's some form of self hate. (Don't worry, therapy out of the way, I'm going to watch the rest of the video now)
@@TheMercifulKnightit has been quite a while... But I will try to remember as many as I can: Filtering playlist groups, filtering artist pages, switch to playlist after song ends, local files as first class citizens that consistently sync and manual control for cases where it doesn't quite work, double clicking local files and having them play in spotify, support for more file types, find alternative version of track button, edit metadata... That's all I remember at the moment. But basically at some point they went from a native app to a partially web-based app, at which point a lot of stuff got missing, and the community posts were mostly ignored.
Thanks Benn. I have exactly the same career background you have. The thing is: passionate people will always be tricked out of making money... just because everyone knows we will do music no matter what and we will grab any chance we get. :-) Before MP3 tech turned the business, (major)labels took the big part of income, now the tech industry does. No change here, but the fact that they dont care about music (spotify is investing revenue from streaming into military AI business models). And as your are an "influencer" now: the tech industry earns from every portion of creativity of individuals, while pushing them into "work harder and release more in shorter time" (so that we techies have more "free" content, we dont really pay for). Here is what i did. 15 years ago i decided to get a regular job. so i get my bills payed. A 1995 music industry was already hard to live with. a 2022 tech industry will only enable young people with no interest in money to survive. As soon as you are 30, you have to face reality. And the social media driven industry is a fake (although you can find ways to get a big audience... this audience will simply "not pay" off with these models, because the ever getting smaller revenues will only add eneough money for big companies earning from millions of content creators...) . Sure... a very few people can make a living out of it... buts thats one out of a million. playing lottery is more effective :-)...... a lot of words from me. the conclusion: spotify is ok, maybe the best to reach an audience... but i see this as a hobby. As musicians, we are the first group who was "hobbyfied" by the digitalization... now 20 years later we see the results... many other will follow (drivers, bank counter and simple office tasks, workers in fabrication of goods). We should do the things, nobody and no robot can do. everything else will not keep us alive
Just a small correction/spoiler: if the last number you gave us is in the correct measure (dollars), it should be ~0.003 (US?) dollars or ~0.3 cents per stream.
I work in the games industry and can say we have a similar issue. Programmers that want to make a good living go work on crappy apps but those that make games want the expression at the cost of complexity. Companies know this and we are generally the lowest paid group of programmers arguable doing some of the hardest work and hours.
What's especially galling about hearing that "Keep working keep releasing" stuff from the CEO of Spotify, is that he's coasting on an entrepreneurial investment he made in 2008.
First of all: WOW, Flashbulb! :) I really liked your music back in my IDM days Second of all: I've been a spotify user for about five months now (for as long as it's available in Russia) and I starting to hate it tbh. Obviously I don't have money issues with it since I'm not a professional artist. My problem with it come from a music fan standpoint: I'm terribly sorry for this analogy but it's like a pornsite. When you first arrive there everything is so exciting you have EVERYTHING just a click away, what a convinience! But you grow pretty uninterested of it pretty quick. That's what happens to me on spotify, weird enough I found myself listening to a lot less music than before music streaming era, also nothing really satisfy me the way it did before. Everything either seem too predictable or too "trying so hard to be unique". I hope it does make sense for anybody except myself :)
Vinyl is the streaming antidote. Like real love vs porn, a real, memorable listen to a good record that captures your full attention, is worth more than 50 streams alongside ads while you do 3 other things in front of your computer.
@@NickHchaos I completely agree. It is very hard for me to drop this multitasking/productivity attitude but I’ll keep trying. Already deleted my fb/insta half a year ago, so far so good :))
@@drum-computer Yep! I only use it IG to share clips of music I've made. I remember when FB came out in 2003--we used it in our university to get homework notes from people and figure out which room they lived in without looking at a paper book.
Wow... great video. Really hit the nail on the head using data, experience, sympathy, empathy... talking to the community as well as the industry, as well as the general public... spot on. Just subscribed and I haven't even checked out the rest of the channel yet. Also, who is this guy? TTA was a milestone during my young adulthood. To even reference a group like that, in a video like this, gets my respect. Cheers.
I'm curious, how do offline listens get attributed? I know as a consumer many people use downloads and offline playback to limit data consumption on mobile plans. I also understand that the listener must go online after a certain time frame, are the offline listens then combined in the monthly total streams for that song?
I am so happy I found your channel. Pale Blue Dot is one of the most important albums to me. The first time I played it I couldn’t turn it off for three days. I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but it isn’t.
Do I hate Spotify? Yes. Do I use it none the less: yes... Because it's the easiest and best integrated way to listen to music and discover new artists. I buy merch and every so often buy a album from bandcamp. But for listening Spotify is simply the best option =x
Hi Benn Jordan, thanks so much for this video. A future question: Does Tunecore pay out less Spotify royalties versus other digital distributions like Awal, Distrokid? I notice a difference, there is something fishy going on. A review would be greatly appreciated.
Benn, I've respected and talked open / plain about your work as The Flashbulb for about a decade now from NY to AK and everywhere in between, now set in IA growing roots. This dissertation along with your piece on Berhinger, and promoting queen producers in all aspects of sound sculpting... cause the corpus collosum and being able to act as a quad processor vs doing linear algebra (most dudes) is powerful in making immersive experiences that engage as many senses as possible (off soapbox here) are all examples of why I am joining your patreon. I'm getting a polybrute and 100% respect your commitment to proper citation in our immediate gratification culture. Hope the hustle keeps us all viable.
Wow, it sounds like more of the norm of corporations exploiting workers in the USA. Just in a different scenario. Do what's best for you and your family and I'll await the discography opportunity!
From the perspective of a music consumer I think Spotify is the best thing on the entire net. From the point of view of someone who's been playing guitar and writing music for fun for about 15 years it's the reason why virtually no one other than myself or my wife will ever hear that music.
The other issue, that you didn't touch, and I actually haven't heard that much about is how spotify has access to that amount of music, and it's information that is not protected from their use at all. With rising of AI, and spofity dictating what it gives to users, in the near future we may see generated music, that will not make any money for musicians that music is based on. I'm probably wording this issue very poorly, sorry about that. If anybody is interested in the topic, the source I got this from is podcast by mylarmelodies WHY WE BLEEP 022 with amazing artist BT, who brings this topic to the table near the end of the podcast (it's avalaible on YT by searching WHY WE BLEEP 022). I highly recommend to give this a listen.
Given that this is a video about the economics of Spotify I don't think that it would have been relevant to talk about this, but I think it's a HUGE thing to consider when thinking about the future of music and would love to see Benn do a video on it.
@@danielcowman9540 Agreed ... it's easy to imagine a future where the entire recorded backcatalog of humanity is fed to a computer, and becomes easily synthesized and replicated; it's already happening, just look at the "AI attempts to continue song" genre of youtube videos: ruclips.net/video/eDW6muDZ4c0/видео.html From a tech perspective it's incredibly interesting, look at what they're doing with tone transfer ... incredible! ruclips.net/video/bXBliLjImio/видео.html but we'll definitely need to deal head on with what this means for intellectual property at some point
@@danielcowman9540 He talks almost only about money, but the title is abstract enough to discuss other things about Spotify. He hasn't touched on it's algorithm, and how it's only promoting music that is already gaining listens (basically means you need to promote it yourself). I think that's because he's not that affected by it having so much listens already, but it's probably also worth some discussion.
lol I actually cut out a 10 minute or so segment about this and how Spotify could stop it, but it did stray quite far from the overall path. 🙂 Maybe I'll do a separate thing.
@@BennJordan Would love to see separate video on this topic! I think this issue is not discussed enough. By the way have you listened to that podcast? It was quite eye opening for me.
Spotify is just one of many music streaming services big tech companies use to raise money from. Most of the money goes straight into the pockets of arrogant co-founders of the various music streaming services. It's not that hard to figure it out, it's all about money.
Thanks Benn. Truly. I have not seen many people talk about these things and explain them as you do. I'd grown increasingly wary and unmotivated about making & playing music, not liking the way I or others around me consume music. I mean, what's the point of doing extensive sound design, of hiring instrumentists, when most people will click next halfway through the song ? Yet the calling remains, gnawing. By discussing openly as you've done here & in other videos the hardships of being a professional musician , you've giving me a glimpse into the reality of the job, but also into a mindset that responds well to these hardships, which inspires me to make music seriously again. That's incredibly valuable. It's awesome to have interesting sources about the theory and practice of music, to be informed on gear, etc. but it turns out that what I needed to move forward was to be shown how the musician as a "businessman" (for lack of a better word) can survive and sometimes thrive. It's a labor of love, as you said, but one where the labourer gains to be tough-minded.
I keep hearing that Spotify's not a profitable business model, but then how does it have a multi-billionaire owner who invests in biotech instead of us?
And on that last point you made, that's my fear: that we're going to see endless collapse. Like everyone of a certain age, I've seen a few digital music economies quietly crumble, and each time everyone's so focussed on the successor that the world doesn't care too much. And every time there's a sea-change, creators are told to wait. No, of course it's not profitable yet - we must be realistic, patient. But that's pretty dispiriting when the owners, who were already rich, ride out stinking rich even from the worst failure, and I don't want to see the industry go into a permanent cycle of collapse, waiting for the boom, and collapse. What's more, it's starting to affect the live industry in many countries where aristocrats move in, don't pay artists properly (if at all) and tell us it's an exciting but difficult time... but they've got this hot brand so being on stage for one of their events is great exposure. You couldn't get away with this except at the lowest levels of the industry in the past, but now it's an easy tactic even for the biggest live brands - particularly for the biggest brands. Non-music brands (TV, movies, games etc) don't pay us as well as they did 10-15 years ago either, because they know we're desperate and that's to their advantage (even though TV and games are making massively more more money than they used to). To be fair to Spotify, that rot began long before they emerged and it's really something that set in with the dramatic decline of physical sales in the 2000s, but Spotify has the biggest position of influence now and they drive the way we are regarded. Spotify makes us look like sitting ducks, demonstrates that we can be treated very badly, and everyone notices.
This is the new way. In 2020 you don't need to be profitable to be a successful and valuable company, you just need to be propped up on VC money with a vague promise of profitability in the future, ideally killing all the traditional competition in the mean time due to their old-fashioned profit requirement. The Spotify CEO's billions come from the abstract market value of the company, not the hard value of the profit it generates. Snapchat got offers to be bought for $3B when they had still not generated a profit. They still barely have. That's not a unique story.
The only way to stop cycles like that are to actually vote, and be involved when these laws are being rewritten in favor of the 1%. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, just fact. There are hardly any people in America that have ran huge businesses that fail that don’t walk away stinking rich while everyone down the ladder from them suffer more and more until the bottom.
@@Natemasterflex Vote for who? At least in the UK or the US, there's nobody to vote for that would make a difference in this matter, or other matters of inequality. Only strengthening unionisation and some kind of massive campaign will stand any chance of affecting the power of the wealthy. And then sooner or later, the power of centrists needs to be dismantled, but this is all we've got in the short term.
I don't think indie musicians should feel entitled to get paid enough to live off of. Music is a business and the most stable way to get paid is to work for others (like be writers or session musicians). Just like everyone who starts a business, there's a huge chance that it's not gonna work out. I do think super rich billionaires shouldnt exist but the reason why we call rich people the 1% is cuz they're the very few lucky ones who made or inherited successful businesses. Making music is a fun job and I think it's pretty backwards to want to have as much pay as someone who suffers through tedium and monotony for minimum wage.
Starting to regret my move to the US... I used to be able to rent both an apartment and my own studio space in Germany for just about $400 plus $80 for artist’s healthcare and retirement. Now my wife and I pay $2500 in rent alone😭
I love your videos and I really love this breakdown. Especially that you went into finances which is a massive taboo in the western world for some reason. I would of honestly removed my adblock from your channel on yourtube, but youtube has become extremely aggressive recently adding 9 minutes of adds before the video even begins without me being able to skip them ... That's literally half the time of your video in pre-roll adds
Don't be sad Mr.Piebro. Keep bringing your true self to every moment of honing in or making your art. And keep looking around for opportunities. Opportunities always appear when no one expects [any more].
Just wanted to say! I was one of those ppl who originally heard your music from stepmania packs back in the 2000's. I later then did download your discography from bittorrent. since then you have been one of my most inspiring musicians and was super thankful to have met you backstage at one of your concerts in Brooklynn. Thank you! I never liked Itunes and other big media platforms hosting to sell music. Always preferred to buy direct from artists websites and see them in concert when possible. As a electronic musician myself I rather keep my music free to my audience and have my hobby job paid for by companies that want rights to use my tracks in games and vids. Love what you are doing and bringing a lot of awareness conversations on your channel these days!
Really educational. I've never heard the dynamic between indi artists and Spotify (and other streaming services too it seems) explained in such a clear way, and pointing the finger at the right people. I've only recently discovered your content, as I've been watching tons of synth reviews and, obviously, you (and loopop) have been visited a lot in that endeavor. I think what strikes me as completely bizarre about the music industry is the fact that marketing appeal is a more valuable commodity than musical talent. It's like the music industry sells image, and the music is just an extra, like a nice scarf. And imo it's totally stupid that I need to search in obscure places to find really interesting music, because any service that's become "mainstream" becomes a service selling image, and I'm looking for interesting music. Anyway, enough of that rant. I like your content.
Yep. That’s why I let time be my filter. As Squarepusher said in an interview from a few years ago, “my influences are mostly from 40-50 years ago and paying attention to how the greats did things.” He also had an on point diatribe about the conformity of music culture, towards profit-surely relevant here.
The most friendly service to indie musicians is Bandcamp. It has no shitty subscriptions. It's something totally different. You can listen to any song (or album) about 10 times. Then, if you want to listen to that specific song/artist/album more, you have to pay. Bandcamp takes like 10%, and, all the 90% goes to the creator. It is by far the most friendly service to indie musicians.
As a consumer I love Spotify, but as an artist I hate Spotify and what it does to music. Songs get shorter. There's going to be a track called "I Hate Too Short Songs" and yes, mostly on Spotify. It will be a settlement to all artists who support something like that and all consumers, because it makes me angry to listen to extra short produced songs that I can't use for DJing. This track is pure sarcasm because it's only 1:32 long. This is an absolute no-go for such a genre like house. And such no-go tracks make me really angry. NOW I FIGHT BACK. When the other sceduled tracks will be released one after another then this track will come online everywhere. Can't tell exactly when. But i will publish this. I AM DONE!!!!!
long time flashbulb listener here. never heard you speak before, was absolutely blown away by your insight into this subject. thank you for being so frank and honest about it. i hope you never change your values, but at the same time i hope things pick up for you financially so you can spend more time with your family and write more music (and play video games of course hah)
Spotify, like all such services, is a highly closed, centralized data silo. Nobody but they gets meaningful access to the platforms metadata - a crucial prerequisite for value creation in our networked world. Additionally, all of these platforms core systems are completely in-transparent by design (rating & discovery algorithms etc.), tilting the balance of power even further in favor of the platform operators and their opaque interests. While this closed approach is annoying for listeners (total service lock-in: no inter-opt with other services, etc.. Soft-censorship: payed placements etc.) - for musicians and labels (beyond a few giants) its catastrophic in the long run. In comparison, the software world has become far more sophisticated when dealing with such topics, which is one of the reasons that "open source" has become so important there.
Man, I love Telefon Tel Aviv! I discovered Immolate Yourself it feels like more than 10 years ago, and since then they've been a band I deeply respect and that influenced my music taste deeply. That's very cool that you knew them!
I'm not a music producer, but I consume hours a day while I work from home, and spotify allows me to have access to so much music. I pay for premium and I am not afraid to listen to artists I have never heard of, so I am always discovering new music to enjoy. Without spotify I would be listening to the dozen or so albums from established artists that I have enjoyed for decades. I understand the artists complaint, but there needs to be acknowledgement that I spend money every month on music that, without spotify, would be spent somewhere else. Just my $0.02, and I want to applaud you for putting this out there, it is a conversation that needs to be made.
To be honest, this is a very tough question since as a consumer/music fan, I love Spotify. It is my go-to place to listen to music and it's so convenient that (almost) all music I listen to is available there, in one single place. But from the perspective of an artist (both as myself since I started producing, and from seeing other aritsts talk about it), it's definitely far from ideal.
It hasn't robbed us of that experience, consumers specifically chose convenience over that experience. There's definitely something magical about buying and playing vinyl, but digital music is _clearly_ the superior choice, which is something that even Benn would tell you.
@@dstutz i don't necessarily mean a physical record. For example, the records i own on bandcamp are something i cherish more than my spotify playlists. Not quite sure why, there is some kind of psychological reason behind it I guess...
@@thomas.moerman it's not robbed you of that experience then, since digital and physical media still exist that give you that experience. It's enabled more people to enjoy more music in more situations
Unfortunately squeezing as much money as possible out of the people at the bottom is common now in many corporations, not just the streaming industry... the people at the top just can't get enough of money even if their entry level employees get sick and eventually die from the stress...
Judging by the comments it sounds like the majority favor convenience over helping put food on the artists table, BECAUSE HAVING TO PRESS ON THE SCREEN A FEW MORE TIMES ON BANDCAMP IS SO MUCH WORK
Thing is tho artists shouldn't feel entitled to have food handed to them. Art and making money from it hinges on the public's consumption of it, and yes the public does LOVES convenience. Especially the uninformed. Streaming is cheaper on the consumer's end compared to buying albums on bandcamp, and seeing how today everyone wants to only listen to music they like, its super unrealistic for someone buy an album they don't know if they'll like yet.
@@moriahmars1462 What artists do feel entitled though? You don’t need to buy albums on bandcamp; you can buy individual songs. It’s up to the artist if they choose to block certain songs from streaming though. If more artists cared less about just trying to get exposure everywhere they could all say ‘I’m not being paid fairly so I’m only going to be on Bandcamp where they respect my wellbeing’. It wouldn’t be hard to sheepdog everyone away from Spotify. It’s on the artists. You can choose to have more exposure and perpetuate the tradition of artists being ripped off or you can have some dignity and try to change the system for the better.
@@moriahmars1462 What you saw wasn't what I meant at all so most of your argument doesn't apply to what I'm saying. I'm not even an artist. Bandcamp artists choose their prices. They respect artists. daily.bandcamp.com/features/update-on-bandcamp-fridays . Even if you put a price on your music people can still stream it for free as long as the song is set to be streamed regardless. Artists should be more concerned about the quality of their audience instead of the quality but the need for exposure is so much they throw themselves at every outlet making nothing while perpetuating the systemic tradition of being ripped off. This isn't about e-begging and when you have millions of people paying 10 bucks a month on top of other media subscriptions it's a bit obtuse to say everyone else is as broke as the artist. You can't generalize either because the spectrum is vast. Now I understand some artists have no problem giving their art away for free so they don't apply to this. If artists want to make a living and think their art has value then they really need to think about the price and stick to who respects that. Putting yourself out on every platform and spending a bunch of time and energy to promote yourself to make a few bucks is undignifying and it shouldn't be up to the artist to do the marketing. That's not their job and it interferes with the artistic self. Quality fans can do that. Respect yourself and other artists. They need to respect themselves, their work and stop perpetuating the system of being ripped off.
The one thing that I DEEPLY dislike about streaming services, is the opaque lack of transparency about how much they pay for each stream, and what constitutes a stream. NOWHERE do I see a clear, upfront "payments" table, on their sites. AND they can change those payouts per stream, at any given time. Just like Amazon cuts their affiliate commission rates whenever they feel like it! Would be fair to have just SOME sort of agreement between the artists and the streaming service, solidifying/insuring the artist's streaming revenue one way or another. Something like "Spotify can not alter the pay per stream amount for a released album" or "If Spotify wants to change the previously agreed upon pay per stream, the artist will be notified 6 months in advance, AND the artist will have the choice of accepting the change, or staying with the originally agreed upon payment structure." (I know those examples are a bit trite and optimistic, but hey...)
This is also a great case for UBI; people are always so quick to tell creatives that they need to temper their expectations, when the world literally stops without art. Literally. Fucking. Stops.
Incidentally, Spotify did introduce me to dozens of new artists I'd never known otherwise. Band camp is great but expensive comparatively -- even if you want to support artists it's one or two albums per month of sportily -- hard to justify as a consumer even if you know what's right.
Hey everyone, thanks for your input. I want to add a friendly reminder that unfortunately, with Spotify becoming a massive share of most independent musician's income, "boycotting Spotify" just punches an open wound. It'll be interesting to see what the future holds, and I do think that at some point a new union will need to be formed or (my wet dream) copyright legislation is overhauled and modernized. Most importantly, it is YOU, my fans, followers, listeners, and even pirates, who make it possible for me to do what I do. The music industry will always change, but listeners and musicians will always be glued together through those changes. ❤
Have you got an essay anywhere detailing your IP model re-work?
Man, I'm so torn on the music economy - on the one hand, I'm very happy music is more democratic, and I get a chance to hear all the great musical minds all around the world who would never have gotten the opportunity for a record contract in the old days. On the other hand, I do sympathize a lot with musicians in today's music economy. A part of that is I think a problem with market saturation - and the fact that purchasing power does certainly not rise proportionally to the amount and diversity of offerings.
Real wages have been stagnant for a while now - so purchasing power doesn't increase - and at the same time more artists are entering the scene, and this year more than ever are in dire need of a reliable stream of income.
I used to buy whatever I could via Bandcamp - your albums included. They were great for discovering music and I'd heard mostly good things from fellow musicians about their business model and contracts. I still do that - and I seldomly stream at all. I feel you ought to get a lot more - so that you can maintain both a steady income stream and not neglect your health and family. I don't know whether market-dynamics in the music streaming economy can support that...
The direct crowdfunding model I feel is not an optimal solution - but it does have a lot of benefits in terms of fewer middle men and a more reliable stream of income with fewer up-front commitments. I would love for you to be able to make music *and* have a physically and emotionally healthy life - you produce some of the most quality content anywhere, so me and I'm pretty sure many of your other fans would love to be able to support that more directly.
I disagree. I would say boycott Spotify to support your fave artists on Bandcamp, real record stores and RUclips based on your financial circumstances and music listening bandwidth
Really appreciate this video and your nuanced perspective! Where do you fit Bandcamp in as an alternative to streaming on Spotify? It's not a replacement for endless streaming, but so many (fellow poor) consumers seem to not even know about it - and that it provides a route to paying significantly more directly to artists. But for those that do and care, it seems like the healthy direction to go in.
Side note - after discovering you through illegal downloading and reading that text file, it was an honor to book you for a show, all those years ago, back in Seattle, and actually hand you a chunk of change and help sell some albums. The music economy was and is fucked. Hope we can get back to more direct engagement like that again soon, though 🙃.
How would you reform copyright laws? Also, wouldn't the musicians' union just become another middleman?
I feel like I just watched the most important video that exists about the current state of music. This was excellent.
That's how I felt too.
Could not agree with you more. I feel like this video should be taught in music/music tech departments everywhere. Would be a great education resource.
It is
Yes. A grift done properly will make you feel that way.
One big issue with Spotify is how it calculates revenue share. Even if I never listen to Taylor Swift, if she gets 90% of all streams, she and her label get 90% of the artists’ share of my and everyone else’s subscription. If an indie artist sees their plays grow but Taylor Swift’s plays grow faster, their revenue will drop. Other issues probably exist as well.
It is fine in theory that Spotify doesn’t guarantee a price-per-play (it’s gotta be proportional to revenue in some way), but it’s not okay that my money doesn’t support the artists I listen to as much as it supports the megastars that are already raking it in.
A “user-centric” model needs to be adopted. It would direct my money to the artists I listen to and make it less easy for stream farming. I will switch streaming services the instant I learn any competitor has implemented such a model.
Bingo. I'll only ad that... the reason why this hasn't already happened very likely means its incredibly expensive/challenging to start something like that. And those costs weren't covered in this video either. I do hope someone steps to the plate.
I had no idea that’s how it worked. So basically ontop of the fact that algorithms benefit labels, they benefit from screwing people even more by screwing the profits.
And then they also own shares . It’s sickening how unfair it all is. They buy their top spots, on radio, Spotify aswell. So they can say they had a record high etc. then they give themselves awards at their irrelevant award shows. The whole thing is a sham
Aren't you describing the very "A “user-centric” model" already with the first paragraph?!
If Taylor Swift gets 90% of all the streams, then she rightly should get 90% of the money allocated to artists, because it would mean if you listened to another artist, 9 other listeners listened to Taylor Swift!
The users (listeners) can listen to whatever they want that is available, and yes, often due to marketing a listener may be pushed to listen to some of the bigger acts. Big pop stars will get most of the streams, it's why they are "big" pop stars! None of them started big, but became big over time, but even they complain of being screwed over, most seem to overlook the money spent on marketing them. It all comes down to this, it's a business, it's about making money, and everyone involved wants their slice of the pie, some greedier than others but every other platform will yield the same results over time.
@@bennyceca “9 other listeners listened to Taylor Swift”
Yes, and their subscription should go to her proportionally. 90% not 99%.
In the current model, if there were 100 users and 99 of them listen to A exclusively but 1 users listens to B exclusively, the payout to A and B depends on how much that one user listens to B. Artist A brings in the first set of users, accounting for 99x the subscription revenue, but if the total streams from B is greater than the streams for A then B would get a bigger payout. The 99 users are paying mostly for B because of the 1 heavy listener of B. The user centric model doesn’t have this quirk.
Obviously, in reality, the popular artists that currently actually do make money off streaming have large fanbases, so things aren’t that different between the two models for them. However, artists with smaller fanbases get their small user-centric cut of the pie cut down even smaller by the share-of-plays-centric model. Switching models impacts a very small proportion of Taylor Swift’s revenue base but a much larger proportion of smaller artists’ revenue bases.
In the share-of-plays model, the platform is incentivized to expand its catalogue to niches in order to bring in new users and give the lion’s share of their subscription revenue to the top artists, rather than the artists that drew in the new users. Is that really a model that makes sense to you?
@@Kebin-Blebin We'd need to see more data. I have a suspicion those of us who don't listen to Taylor Swift actually have more streams (per user, on average) than those who do, as we probably listen more to more music. If that's the case this system benefits the artists we listen to relatively to the system you propose. Neither solves the problems presented in the video though.
"We will still be musicians whether we make a living from it or not." A true artist.
👌🏼
Maybe, or maybe you'll be an ex-musician who bores people to death about their past when they've had a couple of drinks ;)
Ha! That is such a cop out. How the hell are you gonna be a musician if you waste all your time working a job you hate just to survive? You can NOT do both. First it will kill your music, then it will kill you.
Yes. But I absolutely do not want my artistry to be crippled by having to work a day job (that doesn’t give half a fuck about me). There’s only 24 hours in a day, and if 50/65% of it is resting/preparing for that day job, how would I be getting the most out of my mind to be an even better artist?
A warrior.
What I love about Benn is the fact that he is ALWAYS on point, never ever gets agressive about something and always gives constructive criticism without hate. One of the artists that has brains and uses them. Much respect and hope to hear new music from you!
As much as you were a Spotify white knight, I am today a Bandcamp white knight.
I honestly am struggling to understand why Bandcamp's business model isn't loved by all artists AND users.
I myself use Spotify because it's convenient, but it bothers me that the money that I spend on Spotify go into a big mount of money that gets redistributed mostly to people I never listened to, while I know exactly where the money I spent on Bandcamp went.
The reason I fail to understand why Bandcamp isn't talked about and used more is porbably because I lack the insight, but I'll always be happier to pay 2/3 dollars for an album by an artist I love and know they received about 80% of that than, throwing my money in the air and letting the wind carry it to whoever. That just doesn't feel good to me.
I love Bandcamp as a user with no real idea how it treats the artists. I have no problem paying $8 for an album if I can listen to it first and being able to decide what I think it's worth is pretty amazing. It's my goto store for music. Also it has a huge plus over spotify or any other streaming platform that I can download the music as a regular audio file as well as listen in the app. This whole "pay to access" instead of "pay to own" trend is really infuriating me.
If they really have a 80/20 split, that's great. That's beyond great!
@@hrnekbezucha as of Wikipedia info (and their site) they take 15% plus transaction fees but the amount they take drops down to 10% after you sold 5000$ worth of music. And yeah, I also love the pay to own method!
I think bandcamp would be bigger if their app/UI was more streamlined in terms of getting to the things you want, queing up your music, making playlists, organizing a library, suggesting similar music etc. Spotify's UI/ease of use and suggestion features are what make it attractive. I would definitely dedicate more time/support to bandcamp if it was easier to navigate.
Playlists is where Spotify beats bandcamp for the average music listener. I absolutely love BC though
@@tombourguet3604 I concur wholeheartedly. Lol
The UI feels less intuitive, and navigating the genres of music feels like a chore to me. That's not to say that Spotify's algorithm for presenting similar music is perfect - it's just better.
Bandcamp maintains the wonderful spirit of a company that hasn't been devoured by shareholder capitalism. It hasn't been enveloped in the shroud of greed. It won't last forever.
Many company's start out with an ethos, something they hold above profits. An ethical decision made by the instigators of said business. But all is lost when it expands and the old business model provides less income than the new one.
Bandcamp is great for the time being, but it won't last forever.
I also use Last FM as a scrobbler for music, it tracks my listens and gives recommendations and the like. It works better than either Spotify of Bandcamp.
Also as an amateur artist I find it pretty difficult to dip my toes into the industry in any way. I don't want a digital distribution service like Distrokid to rip me off. I also don't want to be sucked into a corporate deal.
I wish I could upload music casually and be tipped as listeners see fit.
I use a combination of: Spotify, Soulseek, SoundCloud, Bandcamp and Last FM. I wish I wasn't feeding so much into a corporate entity.
Spotify doesn’t search by most relevant unless the artist is mainstream. Try looking for an obscure artist and the *exact match* will be buried.
Pat W. Always. Many artists I listen to have at max 200-300 monthly listeners, some as low as 6, and it's so hard to find their music in the search function even though I have the exact match and a history of listening to that artist
@@uwuifyingransomware I love finding decent new small producers. Any recommends on youtube? I dont use spotify.
What? I have literally never had a problem searching for obscure artists on spotify. The search function always works 100% of the time for me. And I don't even listen to mainstream music very much.
@@thebarbaryghostsf I’m talking like less than 5 listeners (like me lmao)
I mean come on haha @@patw
On topic: This video was really informative for me as someone who is just beggining to understand the music industry world.
Off topic fanboy-ism: YOU ARE THE FLASHBULB OH MY GOD.
Arrival to an empty room is one of my favorite songs ever, period.
The best place to get music is -torrent- Bandcamp, next coming CD from publishers, and then rest of cloud services, like iTunes, and etc.
If you want to publish music - it's Bandcamp or contract with publishers, but publishers ofthen require exclusive rights to publish your tracks / albums (only this publisher will be able to publish it and you can't).
Had the same reaction- was 3 minutes in and exclaimed "Holy shit! It's The Flashbulb?!" Glad to see you're still making, alive, and well
I really feel like spotify is a humongous pyramid-scheme. About three million creators making music, with the profits being distributed upwards and the winners being in rough order major-label signees, the largest labels and Daniel Ek.
What really cheeses me off is the fact that a stream is not worth the same for a small creator and a big one.
Me streaming "Dance Monkey" is worth more than streaming "Undiscovered Colors" for some arcane reason involving the words "market share, virality and listener engagement", which translates to "because we say so you, f you - it makes us the most money".
This!
Whoa I think you are right! Good point
Daniel Yecch!
The fact that they decided to throw 100m at AI weapons manufacturing recently tells you alot about their "because we say so"!
No more middle-men in music.
agreed.
bandcamp.com gets the closest to that afaik
peace!
@@zbnmth Bandcamp masterrace
I'd personally use Bandcamp more if it had some better algorithms built in to help me discover similar music from artists I like. As a consumer, I adore Spotify for how easy it is to find more music from artists I've never even heard of.
@@Woodside235 Discovering simimar things isn't the biggest deal to me, but the outright terrible search algorhythm. The fact that you can't get results for "Artist - Title" is annoying, that one has to use an external search engine for that...but i still think bandcamp is the best. The idea is the right one :)
@@voynich7825 I've never had a problem finding specific songs by searching "artist - title," even from super niche artists. I wonder if the search behavior is different for Premium?
The best change that could be made to the streaming model is basing it around musicians and listeners, rather than executives and share holders. A more horizontal business model where the chief exec is isn't worth $3.4 billion and the profit per stream doesn't keep decreasing
I agree here, the arbitrary rate that they pay you per stream should at least be regulated by the industry, it's a joke at present that we ( the artists ) are being thrown the leftover scraps whilst Spotify are feasting from a table of food that we supply.
But the ceo worked so hard for that money! 😂 😂 😂
This is a byproduct in all industries that are based on capitalism growth model. As long as we have this system in place there seems to be no way around it.
The next platform will just be yet another horizontal business model unless we're moving towards web3 / blockchain / decentralisation. There's pro's and con's there as well but it feels to me it will take a couple of generations until we see a real movement to that.
From waht I see as a consumer, spotify is a model that fits how consumers interpret as music. Albums became more and more ethereal because practicality of having your collection anytime in your pocket. Despite people hating the media, is not the media that transformed this, but technology did, as you said.
I love having rare CDs in my collection, but is true that with the amount of time I have free, I can only listen music during traveling and in certain moments in my house that I can multitask as I want. And I feel that is how most middle class (or striving to be) are nowadays.
What someone can hate about Spotify is that for convenience, the cost of the service is way lower than it should be. Also, I feel that is not trasnparent enough about why the price the artist recibe and why.
But also, I have to be honest: I discovered Telefon Tel Aviv through spotify. I listen a lot more of independant music just because now I have access to it and even can buy their music because of it. Nobody should underestimate the fact that you could make great art, but to make a living, people need to know you first (that also, is the main point of abuse from labels and companies).
I got to you because of youtube, and now I hear an album from you once a day (and still trying to understand how to make glitchy drums on protools to work). Now I want to buy your albums, but have to be honest: I live in Argentina, and my anual wage is about 4000 USD (going through a hard ressesion). Though, I'll take the oportunity you give and pay what I can, because music is worth the money.
I made 52 cents from Spotify last month XD
Well, that's better than the 15 cents I've made last month. I've made more money off of a one-off remix for a label than I ever have off of my own songs.
I feel bad for you. Especially with my last months earning of 4,66 dollars hahahah
@@sakuvanninen3839 I’m with ya.
63cts personally é_è
You’re rich!
I think that a little thing Spotify could do to help artists to increase their revenue is to provide some space for artists to advertise their merch and provide a direct access to make donations or subsribe to monthly tipping. Something like some widgets giving listeners a direct access and visibility of a merch page (Big Cartel? Bandcamp?), or donation/tipping platform (Teepee? Patreon?).
From what I understand, many artists combine a lot of different sources and types of revenue, the issue being that they are usually all spread on different platforms.
Since Spotify is providing a centralized interface, they could allocate some space for this. Not too invasive, but at the chosing of the artist and to encourage people to directly support.
If Spotify does not yet have the money to pay fairly, at least they should make efforts to make it easy for listerners who are willing to give money directly to the artists they like and want to support.
Yep. Why is that not already the case?
I'm not sure if it went away, but they used to have links for merch and such on artists pages. They also used to advertise gig dates (obviously that isn't active right now). Personally, I've bought several t-shirts and albums from links on Spotify artist pages. Not justifying Spotify's behavior or anything. Just pointing out that they did something like this for a spell.
They have now added this, in a way. You can put a link to a "suggested donation" to either a charity or your own cash app account.
Hell when it comes to merch they could even make it really easy for people to impulse buy it while vibing to the music. Spotify already has the users card details and address there is no reason they couldn't add a convenient option to just buy it on the spot and charge a small premium for saving people the job of signing up with some external web store. I think a lot of people would probably pay a couple of bucks extra for the convenience of being able to order via their spotify account, then you have people like me that might actually be inclined to buy in the first place if it didn't involve a bunch of time to add my data to yet another data breech risk just to buy one item. This way the artist is still getting the full purchase price they were selling it for too, spotify is just charging the user an extra few euros for making it more convenient by essentially acting like a concierge to source it from the seller in the background on their behalf.
@@seraphina985 Selling merch isn't just about making a transaction, it is also about stock management and product selection/preview. But I agree that they could perhaps help payment by acting as a reliable intermediary, that would require the external websites to implement the necessary interfaces.
However, at the end it remains to tell if the loss of profit (or increase in price) would suit both the artists and buyers.
How tf did i JUST learn that you're The Flashbulb? lmao
Me too! whut...
@@autonomic_pilot bruh I've been listening to this guy since 2014 and now I randomly find him on youtube dang
my thought as well!
It's very simple Spotify's CEO and Spotify's executives do not care and only care about profit for them and their investors.
like all corporations
Swedish company following chinese corporate philosophy. Cheat, and if that doesnt work, steal.
I'd love to see what would happen if you combined Spotify's ease and seamlessness of finding new music and making playlists with Bandcamp's payouts and store integration. Something where you can find a track, listen to it for a while, and then buy the digital copy/physical CD's/merch/tour ticket(?) to support it all in one shot. You could even have some thing where the more you stream it the cheaper that album gets for you, like how iTunes allows you to complete an album for less if you've bought one of the songs on it already.
We need an Elon Musk-type disruption to the industry.
@@spiritlevelstudios we already have, it's called Spotify.
@Daniel Gregory: That is a GREAT idea.
@@philvanderyken9866 Spotify rips off creators.
@@spiritlevelstudios I agree, that's my point. All this so-called disrupting just ends up being new and innovative ways to rip off the people that create your product.
Woah. About two weeks ago I was tearing my hair out for an hour or so trying to remember the name of an electronic band who had an album and particularly a tune which opened said album that I was obsessed with over ten years ago. Fast forward to tonight and I stumble upon your great channel, hear you say the words "Telefon Tel Aviv" and it all clicks... Immolate Yourself being the album and The Birds being the track. I never owned a copy back in the day so I just picked it up on Bandcamp. Thank you!
The problem is exactly what you said: music, and plenty of other art forms, deserve to exist and be experienced by people regardless of the profit motive. There's a lot of stuff out there that's beautiful, that we can't have more of because "it doesn't make money". We deserve to live in a world where we can stop worrying about it.
Thanks for making this video. I started putting my stuff out six months ago using DistroKid. There's really no reason to be optimistic about anything but your video somehow still made me feel better about the future. Making the inner workings transparent is always the first step in making things better. And you did a terrific job at clearing things up without blaming or hurting anyone. I really respect that.
I personally went from being one of, 'the last', who were still buying physical, to eventually joining everyone else, but I recently looked into the financial side of things/ which you talk about in detail in this video, and now buy predominantly digital, with some physical sprinkled in (I'm a sucker for special editions and bonus DVD's).
It's great being able to go and listen to an album I didn't have enough money to buy as a teenager back in the day, but now as an adult, I can't help but notice that kids aren't experiencing the, 'magic', of getting that new album from the local store, going home, and listening to whole thing, as a linear experience, as they were intended. It makes me kind of sad.
So true. Having everything all at once at hand takes away the magic. For me just radio recording a tape with part of a song I loved meant the world. Things change fast 🤣
I'm 23 now. As a teenager I would hunt online for metal albums that appealed to me. I didn't really stream any of it, and I definitely listened to albums through. Maybe it's not quite as magical but finding some of my favorite albums was exciting, and it's obvious that these albums are so much better as a whole. I think there are still music loving kids who search far and wide for amazing music and who feel some kind of magic listening to them for the first time. Shit I guess my point is that the magic is in the music, not the medium. I'd love to hear you disagree with that though, because I never got to experience exactly what you're talking about.
So long as musicians and listeners continue to opt for centralized solutions vs decentralized solutions, we will always face the issue of too much power in the hands of a few.
The good news is there are decentralized streaming services!
totally agree. I'm not sure if you know of resonate.is
I just found this channel and checked your music out and it turns out I've been listening to you for over 10 years! Your music has helped me so much thank you for existing and I love your channel!
This should be eye opener of how hard it is to make a living off music. 7 million streams is not easy- and you honestly make more driving Uber.
and lots of creatives have to do just that-drive for Uber-to make ends meet
That is as long as you turn a blind eye to the fact that wear and tear on vehicles is a thing, but then you will be in for a shock when the inevitable repair bill that takes up most of your "earnings" and then some eventually comes in. Turns out cars rack up repair bills at a fairly large and constant rate while running albeit it is harder to predict when said bills will become due, but they will have to be paid at some time that is a guarantee especially if you are driving the vehicle around all day every day. Took my friend almost a year doing it before he started to question that and realised that his net earnings were essentially £0 for those 12 months after factoring in fuel, wear and tear on the vehicle and the higher insurance costs etc. It is really deceptive though as the income is modest but frequent while most of the expenses are large but infrequent so it is hard to get a sense how much you are actually getting without sitting down and doing all the calculations over a longer period like a year or so.
Perhaps someone already asked, or perhaps you already have, but I would love to see you do a similar breakdown of the bandcamp model and do a compare/contrast. There's a clear opinion from the comments I read here but I think having a deep dive and presenting the findings would be well worth it
So cool to be able to get an insiders perspective on the music industry.
To answer the Spotify question, I've never really made money from my music. I haven't ever seen Spotify as a possible source of income, and see it more as an "exposure" thing for people too lazy to hit up Bandcamp. It's always the first thing people ask: "Are you on Spotify?" That being said, I have a full time job outside of music, so it's not a stressor for me to not get paid, regardless of my anxiety about always being productive and generating new music. Do I understand why people are upset? Absolutely. Can I identify with the same pressure points? Not at all. I guess I approach the issue with empathy, then.
That being said, the Groupees deal is awesome, and I'm glad you're doing it again! Any new stuff from the last time it was released?
just gonna drop my 2 cents here. hate is too strong, i guess -- also it is known to be damaging psychologically. rather we should abandon spotify, as we should try to abandon and avoid other streaming-only services with no ability to buy directly from the author. this "service" trend is really damaging to the individuals and is beneficial to the global corporations.
Im also gonna drop my 2 cents here...
All 2 cents i made from spotify, you can have it.
Lol jk. I enjoy having my music on streaming services no matter how much money or how many listens I get so I can't agree with you. I think its useful to have many avenues to distribute your music. A lot of people consume and listen to music almost exclusively through streaming services, so when you abandon spotify or similar services you are abandoning the possibility of those people coming across your music or steadily listening to it. Its about networking and tying together your bandcamp link, merch link, and website etc all together while also giving the listener the option to conveniently listen on spotify as well. I have bought a lot of albums but I listen to them on spotify more than I spin them so I am contributing in 2 ways for the same releases.
It sounds like your approach is if enough people avoid streaming services then they will die off, but thats not reality. It's the same mentality of a vegan or vegetarian who thinks they are saving the whole animal kingdom. (Nothing wrong with being vegan or vegetarian I just hate the whole superiority complex some people have about it)
@@visualsynthetics9882 well, i've gotta believe in the ability of each and every one of us to have the most digital independency we can. i understand where you're coming from, but in my view it is better to not consume streaming
@@arrtemfly most people will always be conformist in stupid ways, the replier to your comment seems to be essentially saying, so why fight against it? Well, it comes down to the life you want to live and the world you want to create, as I think you are basically saying. Of course, it’s foolish advice if you are trying to be super popular or make all your income from one improbably source..but that’s not most of us, so just let it go and do what you want rather than buying into a vision that downgrades reality.
@LowLinK what a story! i feel you
I'm at 10:45, and you have just mentioned "socialised copyright", I'm definitely going to look this up. I have been idly thinking about this for years. Fair compensation of creators for copyright, and I think even more transformatively patents, without them retaining control. Also, branding should be a way to identify the producer, not the right to profit from advertising
check out "Against Intellectual Property" by Stephan Kinsella (free online via PDF). it's from a libertarian perspective, and a bit more broadly based on criticizing IP in general. a quick and interesting read
Hey Benn, I just wanna let you know that your album Soundtrack to a vacant life really had a huge impact on my life. It's beautiful and delicate. I especially like Warm hands in cold fog and the 7 last tracks. Suspended in a sunbeam is brilliant. Keep up the good work! ❤️🙏
Bandcamp is a pretty good model. People buy and create their own streams and artists and labels get a much higher cut of the proceeds. If they can get some more convenience worked into the platform, it could prove to be competition for Spotify.
Hi Benn - just to let you know, I'll be one of those several hundred thousand people who listen to you every month. You are amazing with production right up there with my favorites: Tycho, Bonobo, etc... that's where you are. Thank you for making music, I hope that the insanity of the current business models doesn't stop you (or others) from continuing. You've inspired me not to give up through your videos - and I thank you for that.
I'm in bucket 3: I'm a nobody, I hate Spotify and I don't publish to Spotify no matter how much people ask me to.
Benn, your openness, candour and honesty talking about the music industry issues are amazing. You have my greatest respect. Thanks for making these videos.
I think creatives need to take some responsibility for this, as they held up streaming and other online activities as subsidiary and auxiliary to live performance. The point being is that if you didn't have live performance, and now you don't, then you couldn't pay the bills but you could then so you didn't fight for it. And now the fight is apparent. Should a creative that has 50k regular RUclips views have a middle-class income? I would think yes. Should a person that streams millions of songs have a middle-class income? Yeah. But we all played a part of devaluing that by saying, that is OK because I can sell T-shirts and I can play gigs. But I don't think a person that has that many regular viewing or millions of streams should be in a position to seek out live performance to up an income, at this stage a solid income from that should be a given. But we didn't fight for that.
And that is the fight we should be having. I don't know if the solution is a tax on the internet, putting all media on the blockchain, or even AI systems acting as brokers. And a UBI would go a long way to help so that an artist can afford to struggle to find an audience that pays, and supplement an income once an audience is found and grown. But every single one of us needs to be having this discussion and working to a solution. Because it is not OK to say to creatives, that have a massive audience across a range of online companies, now go and make some money playing out your content in a live setting - because in a technology media age it is the live performance income that should be subsidiary or auxiliary to online activities. And because that was OK for a time we sat back and we got the whole setup backwards. It is not OK now, and it never was. And only by having a fight to end all fights will it ever be OK.
Very true.
I think it's very easy to look back with hindsight and ascribe a narrative that this is partially the responsibility of creators as if we were all one big monolithic entity, and retroactively characterise all artists as holding up streaming and other online activities as subsidiary and auxiliary to live performance, or not fighting for better, when there was no such consensus, and no plan.
Coming out of the disruption of early-internet piracy, all parts of the industry were in confusion about how to survive it, and artists still had their hands full with creating. I don't think any artist genuinely thought 'oh it's OK because I can still pay gigs'. This has been a slow transformation in tiny steps, through all of this confusion, and no union of musicians large enough, or unified voice from all creatives to really make an impact on what was happening. And almost no-one could have predicted it would go this way.
In the old music industry model artists were also at the bottom and have had precious little power in the dynamic. So how then could they really have collectively fought for better? Essentially we've been gaslit by those with the most power for a long time. In the 70s it was the labels, now it's Spotify and Live Nation.
I really think it's a convenient fiction to ignore the overwhelming pressure that the big platforms and major players have put on artists over the last forty years.
@@wildernesshymnal - I agree that musicians have always been held at the bottom, but I see that as a separate issue. We are a technology media society. And over the last years I can't count the amount of times I've heard it said, you make money gigging in music today. They shouldn't be prescribed to that. The film industry didn't say, you need to be releasing in the cinema to make money - they created a new model and exploited that. Until we collectivaly get together and get off Spotify, Apple and others, find and exploit that alternative then this will go on and on. Does a creative need a middleman? The relationship doesn't need to be anything other than artist going direct to audience, with 100% revenue - and that takes a small skillset today. The quicker we do that the quicker we will see the big companies come around to 10% of something, rather than 90% of nothing. Creative people can make money without the music industry, the music industry doesn't exist without creatives. Many have got this whole setup wrong. But we do have hindsight now how fragile a gigging income is compared to online. Covid isn't a friend, but has taught us a lesson that changes everything. Online media technology isn't new, and we need to start investing the weight of creative output within that, if it pays then even better. But it won't till we enforce that.
I have a unique perspective as both a musician with multiple projects on Spotify, and a professional DJ of twenty years. First things first, I've been a paid member of Spotify since 2011. I've made maybe a few dollars in 9 years. But I don't think of Spotify as a service that is paying me. I think of it as the ultimate service for music discovery. I hated Pandora, because it has an algorithm that guides your listening. I don't need a bot to tell me what I should listen to. I just want the freedom of finding a new artist, and organically discovering dozens of similar artists in a matter of minutes at my OWN PACE. I can honestly say that I wouldn't have found 80% of the music I've become obsessed with over the past decade, w/out having Spotify. And those artists wouldn't be enjoying the promotion that comes from a professional DJ playing your music for a crowd of hundreds of people (often with some patrons actually walking up to ask for more info about the song). But perhaps the greatest thing for me about Spotify, is how easy it is to access music from other countries. Music that would have cost a fortune to have imported. Such as 80's Japanese City Pop. One of my favorite genres of music, but not an easy genre to collect if you aren't rolling in dough. Spotify has made it possible for me to not only find a few of these artists songs (in HQ recordings no less), but each of these artists literally has almost their entire discography available to listen to through Spotify now.
Same thing applies to small bands I used to love and lost touch with, and all of their music is now out of print. But for the most part, I can find these artists easily on Spotify as well. I feel like you really hit the nail on the head with the comment about people bitching about not getting paid for streams when they hardly actually sell any physical media to begin with. Too many younger artists are unaware of how messed up the music industry was BEFORE streaming, They fail to appreciate all of the positive aspects of no longer having to depend on a label and being completely independent. The idea of a bedroom producer having their random song featured in a famous persons tweet, literally making them famous overnight, was not something that even existed prior to the streaming revolution. Anyways, I thought this video was great, and it's nice to hear a pov from someone who understands the ever changing landscape of the music industry.
This was interesting. Thank you for sharing!
And also: I fantasize about a future where we can go to live shows again and I then go and experience you playing live with Telefon Tel Aviv in a glorious collaboration.
Love your video! Its a fascinating perspective to listen to - one of the first videos on my channel was about the same topic as well - although I'm doing marketing at a record label while playing in a band, so it's kind of combining both viewpoints. I referenced the exact statement that you picked as well, but the way I understood it, it was less of a "produce more material", but rather meant as "be smarter with how you release things". I think what we're seeing is a shift in how things are being done - how music is released. While the internet & consumers tend to move quicker, the industry really struggles to keep up with them and I think the biggest problem is the concept of an album release itself. With most albums we're talking 30 minutes + which is A TON of time that a person has to spend with the content online. Adding to that is the fact that most artists just pick a few singles to promote their album - the rest of it is sitting idle on the album page - not getting playlisted, not being promoted, just "filling time" so the work can be called an album. So naturally these are just streamed by people who know the artist, know the album or really want to hear it - BUT they're not drawing in new people, which naturally leads to less streams. What I'm thinking needs to happen in the industry, is that people start to think of every song as a single. The process has already started but this is where I think that Quote comes in. Instead of releasing a new album every 3 years, an artist releases new music every Month over a year for example. It just makes more sense nowadays, but then again - that doesn't change the fact that Spotify slashed your income, which sucks. Great video! I just subscribed!
Damn you used the Sublight records logo. Now there’s a blast from the past. RIP, you burned too bright, too fast
Been a long time fan and it is amazing to see this topic discussed this openly. Looking out for new videos! Much love Benn
I think it would be cool if Spotify would add an extra layer to the service where artists are also paid independently of plays. Maintain the old model, but create a new Patreon-like layer where people can voluntarily increase their monthly payment by a few bucks to be paid directly to their favorite artists.
For example, the podcast collective Maximum Fun solicits donations from listeners in $5 intervals with no ceiling, and then each listener can divide their donation up among any number of network podcasts. The result is that I can optimize my personal "bang for buck". I can pay $5 for 10 podcasts, $10 for my favorite 3. Or I can pay $20 for 1 podcast. Any combo I want. Spotify would most definitely benefit from a system like this, however, I'm sure there would be new opportunities for abuse.
Interestingly, if Spotify makes its users' streaming/library data public, a smart company could technically do this without Spotify's involvement. I'd probably need lawyers to sign off on that idea before I touched it with a 10 foot pole, though.
I knew something was up with Telefon Tel Aviv and Spotify but didn’t know the details or significance until now. I appreciate you sharing this.
Your contributions to music are equally as appreciated and your perspective is a welcome one; thanks!
I really hate it how every field of the economy (especially in USA where services too are private and about profit) just ends up effectively exploiting the people who do the work that results in the profits for the companies, in this case, the musicians who make the music streamed on the platforms.
That needs to change!
This video made me so sad and angry. Nobody should need to work so much it hurts their health and well-being. It Isn’t right.
Seize the means of production?
sounds like you might want a communism my friend
"Who do the work" as if Spotify didnt spend hundreds of millions coding and organizing marketing for the platform.
@@AJ-di4df yes, but they didnt create the art itself. that platform would entirely go to waste without the artists, and the business model the platform perpetuates hurts artists.
@@SorchaSublime yes but the platform that invested HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS creates the optimal experience to send audio media. If you dont like their rates or business model, dont upload. It's a choice. If no one uploads they will be forced to adapt.
Telefon Tel'Afiv... my god. Sweet, beautiful memories almost from another life.
I dont get why people would hate spotify.
Its an amazing service. Just music sans all the crap.
Do we seriously want to go the streaming service route and buy 10 subscriptions in the future from different music services?
If artists want more money - fine. Id easily pay double the price im paying nor for spotify.
i love how you hit the positives and negatives so transparently - love this overall take!
I have a whole lot of thoughts about streaming music services, but almost everything boils down to the fundamental issue of commodification, and the absurdity of attempting to substitute price for subjective value in the realm of music/art. Any way we try to address this problem in a purportedly "market" economy, we have to contend with (among many other things) the fact that artistic endeavors don't fit neatly into materialist definitions of a commodity-that is, it is next to impossible to calculate the value, utility, exchange value, and price of a piece of music, for example-and then also with the fact that, if we as a society want art to exist, creators have to be able to exchange their artistic labor for other commodities (shelter, food, medicine, etc.) and their work needs to be compensated for in some fashion.
You grazed this topic in the video, but the reification of information/ideas/art into intellectual property is an already shaky compromise between the artist's (and their consumer's) perception of the value of an artistic work and the economic necessity of detaching the work from the artist in order to exchange some version of it for capital...and it sucks that this is the method our society has decided is how artists should be compensated for their work. I have even more trouble describing the exact processes and forms of commodity fetishism in streaming music/video services, since it is already difficult to understand art as a commodity. The availability of a large catalog and variety of recorded music almost certainly helps services like Spotify and Apple Music remain appealing to users even if some of their favorite recordings are absent; hyper-commercialization has created lots of effectively interchangeable music; we haven't even touched on the fact that Spotify was at least once caught putting "fake" music in their playlists to avoid paying out royalties to external rights holders.
Unfortunately, my solutions for these problems all involve some radical reworking of IP laws, and some kind of guaranteed income for artists that would hopefully-eventually-lead to the decommodification of art. That, or the total abolition of the value-form...
So I guess I don't hate Spotify, but I don't have anything good to say about the situation that led to Spotify.
Well put. Hard to blame Spotify when they are just playing the capitalism game by the 'rules' (or lack thereof).
That feeling when I came for the content and realized that I'm one of your long-time fans at Spotify. Thanks for your music!
I love how you reiterated how this is purely from your perspective. It's hard to imagine what any person thinks any one person deserves for their work in the music industry. But what seems clear to me is that those who have a story to back up their music can make a bit more income through RUclips. Producers like Andrew Huang collaborate with others and discuss their music and their production efforts. In the same way, I think attaching your human qualities (opinions , observations, experiences) on RUclips as a companion to your music is a good approach for this social media marketing landscape.
This is so on point. Agreed with your whole analysis here. As an artist that has worked with both larger labels and also released music independently, you absolutely can make money on Spotify but it's getting harder and harder. You need to be extremely consistent and dedicated with frequent regular independent releases.
I discovered you on Spotify a few weeks ago, probably wouldn't have happened without it. Keep up the good work 👍👌
@@jamen1993 Thanks so much! My debut album is coming early 2021, stay tuned :)
As a user I really like Spotify, it gives me access to new and old music and makes me aware of new artists.
As a producer/artist, honestly, I hate it. I hate that they've come along as the "savior of the music business" and just made it worse. I hate the whole getting on playlist thing and trying to work out how that works and the quantity over quality that's now required. It's no longer music, it's simply a commodity. I'm also still trying to work out who the fuck gave them monetised access to my whole back catalogue too. I didn't' sign anything to say that they could do that and then pay me an arbitrary ( and tiny ) rate per stream.
I dunno, not a fan at all really. I feel like I'm being milked by this company whilst they grow exponentially richer. You can't win though, you just have to use them nowadays like some music business sucker punch to the nuts. Gotcha, deal with it!
I mean, people complain about major record deals and artists taking back control, but hey, I've been in a few in my time, at least you actually got paid for your work back then. ( FTR I'm talking about the pre-itunes days here )
Agreed. Spotify is like the mafia without the shiny suits.
Thank you @BennJordan for speaking on one of the most important topics of our time.
You have said what has been on the minds of a lot of us musicians for some years now, and delivered it most eloquently! Indeed this system Spotify came up with is highly unfair & payola-ridden, and even though it’s “democratized” getting one’s music out to the masses, we still all deserve at least a minimum wage. Thank you also for sharing your own experience, it was great to see how long you’ve been performing, and why you’re worth your salt. Hopefully this video can educate more people about this issue. Keep up the good work man!
Insightful and honest. Appreciate what you're doing Benn.
just found out about your channel, never heard about you or your music before but really like the realism behind the things you're saying. really great video man
I hate Spotify because they kept removing features that I found to be really useful, and I've been paying them for the privilege of getting fewer and fewer features with lower and lower performance. For years.
So arguably it's some form of self hate.
(Don't worry, therapy out of the way, I'm going to watch the rest of the video now)
What features have they removed? Lol I haven't seen any. List please.
@@TheMercifulKnightit has been quite a while... But I will try to remember as many as I can:
Filtering playlist groups, filtering artist pages, switch to playlist after song ends, local files as first class citizens that consistently sync and manual control for cases where it doesn't quite work, double clicking local files and having them play in spotify, support for more file types, find alternative version of track button, edit metadata...
That's all I remember at the moment. But basically at some point they went from a native app to a partially web-based app, at which point a lot of stuff got missing, and the community posts were mostly ignored.
Thanks Benn. I have exactly the same career background you have. The thing is: passionate people will always be tricked out of making money... just because everyone knows we will do music no matter what and we will grab any chance we get. :-) Before MP3 tech turned the business, (major)labels took the big part of income, now the tech industry does. No change here, but the fact that they dont care about music (spotify is investing revenue from streaming into military AI business models). And as your are an "influencer" now: the tech industry earns from every portion of creativity of individuals, while pushing them into "work harder and release more in shorter time" (so that we techies have more "free" content, we dont really pay for). Here is what i did. 15 years ago i decided to get a regular job. so i get my bills payed. A 1995 music industry was already hard to live with. a 2022 tech industry will only enable young people with no interest in money to survive. As soon as you are 30, you have to face reality. And the social media driven industry is a fake (although you can find ways to get a big audience... this audience will simply "not pay" off with these models, because the ever getting smaller revenues will only add eneough money for big companies earning from millions of content creators...) . Sure... a very few people can make a living out of it... buts thats one out of a million. playing lottery is more effective :-)...... a lot of words from me. the conclusion: spotify is ok, maybe the best to reach an audience... but i see this as a hobby. As musicians, we are the first group who was "hobbyfied" by the digitalization... now 20 years later we see the results... many other will follow (drivers, bank counter and simple office tasks, workers in fabrication of goods). We should do the things, nobody and no robot can do. everything else will not keep us alive
Just a small correction/spoiler: if the last number you gave us is in the correct measure (dollars), it should be ~0.003 (US?) dollars or ~0.3 cents per stream.
It’s 0.003 US dollars per stream
This video was as candid as it gets. Good explanations. Wishing you luck and success man
I buy all the Flashbulb stuff on Bandcamp.
I always figured that paying up front gives the artists a much larger cut than potential future streaming.
I work in the games industry and can say we have a similar issue. Programmers that want to make a good living go work on crappy apps but those that make games want the expression at the cost of complexity. Companies know this and we are generally the lowest paid group of programmers arguable doing some of the hardest work and hours.
What's especially galling about hearing that "Keep working keep releasing" stuff from the CEO of Spotify, is that he's coasting on an entrepreneurial investment he made in 2008.
exceptionally well put together benn!
First of all: WOW, Flashbulb! :) I really liked your music back in my IDM days
Second of all: I've been a spotify user for about five months now (for as long as it's available in Russia) and I starting to hate it tbh. Obviously I don't have money issues with it since I'm not a professional artist. My problem with it come from a music fan standpoint: I'm terribly sorry for this analogy but it's like a pornsite. When you first arrive there everything is so exciting you have EVERYTHING just a click away, what a convinience! But you grow pretty uninterested of it pretty quick. That's what happens to me on spotify, weird enough I found myself listening to a lot less music than before music streaming era, also nothing really satisfy me the way it did before. Everything either seem too predictable or too "trying so hard to be unique". I hope it does make sense for anybody except myself :)
Vinyl is the streaming antidote. Like real love vs porn, a real, memorable listen to a good record that captures your full attention, is worth more than 50 streams alongside ads while you do 3 other things in front of your computer.
@@NickHchaos I completely agree. It is very hard for me to drop this multitasking/productivity attitude but I’ll keep trying. Already deleted my fb/insta half a year ago, so far so good :))
@@drum-computer Yep! I only use it IG to share clips of music I've made. I remember when FB came out in 2003--we used it in our university to get homework notes from people and figure out which room they lived in without looking at a paper book.
Wow... great video. Really hit the nail on the head using data, experience, sympathy, empathy... talking to the community as well as the industry, as well as the general public... spot on. Just subscribed and I haven't even checked out the rest of the channel yet. Also, who is this guy? TTA was a milestone during my young adulthood. To even reference a group like that, in a video like this, gets my respect. Cheers.
I'm curious, how do offline listens get attributed? I know as a consumer many people use downloads and offline playback to limit data consumption on mobile plans. I also understand that the listener must go online after a certain time frame, are the offline listens then combined in the monthly total streams for that song?
Apparently the app gathers the data offline and the next time there is internet it sends them to Spotify, so basically it's the same as online listens
I am so happy I found your channel. Pale Blue Dot is one of the most important albums to me. The first time I played it I couldn’t turn it off for three days. I know it sounds like an exaggeration, but it isn’t.
Do I hate Spotify? Yes. Do I use it none the less: yes...
Because it's the easiest and best integrated way to listen to music and discover new artists. I buy merch and every so often buy a album from bandcamp. But for listening Spotify is simply the best option =x
I hate it and also use it too
I love your candor. Also, props for talking about the nature of information and your dream of socialized copyright. "Information is good for everyone"
Hi Benn Jordan, thanks so much for this video. A future question: Does Tunecore pay out less Spotify royalties versus other digital distributions like Awal, Distrokid? I notice a difference, there is something fishy going on. A review would be greatly appreciated.
Benn, I've respected and talked open / plain about your work as The Flashbulb for about a decade now from NY to AK and everywhere in between, now set in IA growing roots. This dissertation along with your piece on Berhinger, and promoting queen producers in all aspects of sound sculpting... cause the corpus collosum and being able to act as a quad processor vs doing linear algebra (most dudes) is powerful in making immersive experiences that engage as many senses as possible (off soapbox here) are all examples of why I am joining your patreon. I'm getting a polybrute and 100% respect your commitment to proper citation in our immediate gratification culture. Hope the hustle keeps us all viable.
Wow, it sounds like more of the norm of corporations exploiting workers in the USA. Just in a different scenario. Do what's best for you and your family and I'll await the discography opportunity!
From the perspective of a music consumer I think Spotify is the best thing on the entire net. From the point of view of someone who's been playing guitar and writing music for fun for about 15 years it's the reason why virtually no one other than myself or my wife will ever hear that music.
The other issue, that you didn't touch, and I actually haven't heard that much about is how spotify has access to that amount of music, and it's information that is not protected from their use at all. With rising of AI, and spofity dictating what it gives to users, in the near future we may see generated music, that will not make any money for musicians that music is based on. I'm probably wording this issue very poorly, sorry about that. If anybody is interested in the topic, the source I got this from is podcast by mylarmelodies WHY WE BLEEP 022 with amazing artist BT, who brings this topic to the table near the end of the podcast (it's avalaible on YT by searching WHY WE BLEEP 022). I highly recommend to give this a listen.
Given that this is a video about the economics of Spotify I don't think that it would have been relevant to talk about this, but I think it's a HUGE thing to consider when thinking about the future of music and would love to see Benn do a video on it.
@@danielcowman9540 Agreed ... it's easy to imagine a future where the entire recorded backcatalog of humanity is fed to a computer, and becomes easily synthesized and replicated; it's already happening, just look at the "AI attempts to continue song" genre of youtube videos:
ruclips.net/video/eDW6muDZ4c0/видео.html
From a tech perspective it's incredibly interesting, look at what they're doing with tone transfer ... incredible!
ruclips.net/video/bXBliLjImio/видео.html
but we'll definitely need to deal head on with what this means for intellectual property at some point
@@danielcowman9540 He talks almost only about money, but the title is abstract enough to discuss other things about Spotify. He hasn't touched on it's algorithm, and how it's only promoting music that is already gaining listens (basically means you need to promote it yourself). I think that's because he's not that affected by it having so much listens already, but it's probably also worth some discussion.
lol I actually cut out a 10 minute or so segment about this and how Spotify could stop it, but it did stray quite far from the overall path. 🙂 Maybe I'll do a separate thing.
@@BennJordan Would love to see separate video on this topic! I think this issue is not discussed enough.
By the way have you listened to that podcast? It was quite eye opening for me.
New fav channel. Such a variety of content, all of which is eye opening and informative. Thanks!
Spotify is just one of many music streaming services big tech companies use to raise money from. Most of the money goes straight into the pockets of arrogant co-founders of the various music streaming services. It's not that hard to figure it out, it's all about money.
Thanks Benn. Truly.
I have not seen many people talk about these things and explain them as you do. I'd grown increasingly wary and unmotivated about making & playing music, not liking the way I or others around me consume music.
I mean, what's the point of doing extensive sound design, of hiring instrumentists, when most people will click next halfway through the song ?
Yet the calling remains, gnawing.
By discussing openly as you've done here & in other videos the hardships of being a professional musician , you've giving me a glimpse into the reality of the job, but also into a mindset that responds well to these hardships, which inspires me to make music seriously again.
That's incredibly valuable. It's awesome to have interesting sources about the theory and practice of music, to be informed on gear, etc. but it turns out that what I needed to move forward was to be shown how the musician as a "businessman" (for lack of a better word) can survive and sometimes thrive.
It's a labor of love, as you said, but one where the labourer gains to be tough-minded.
I keep hearing that Spotify's not a profitable business model, but then how does it have a multi-billionaire owner who invests in biotech instead of us?
And on that last point you made, that's my fear: that we're going to see endless collapse. Like everyone of a certain age, I've seen a few digital music economies quietly crumble, and each time everyone's so focussed on the successor that the world doesn't care too much. And every time there's a sea-change, creators are told to wait. No, of course it's not profitable yet - we must be realistic, patient. But that's pretty dispiriting when the owners, who were already rich, ride out stinking rich even from the worst failure, and I don't want to see the industry go into a permanent cycle of collapse, waiting for the boom, and collapse.
What's more, it's starting to affect the live industry in many countries where aristocrats move in, don't pay artists properly (if at all) and tell us it's an exciting but difficult time... but they've got this hot brand so being on stage for one of their events is great exposure. You couldn't get away with this except at the lowest levels of the industry in the past, but now it's an easy tactic even for the biggest live brands - particularly for the biggest brands. Non-music brands (TV, movies, games etc) don't pay us as well as they did 10-15 years ago either, because they know we're desperate and that's to their advantage (even though TV and games are making massively more more money than they used to). To be fair to Spotify, that rot began long before they emerged and it's really something that set in with the dramatic decline of physical sales in the 2000s, but Spotify has the biggest position of influence now and they drive the way we are regarded. Spotify makes us look like sitting ducks, demonstrates that we can be treated very badly, and everyone notices.
This is the new way. In 2020 you don't need to be profitable to be a successful and valuable company, you just need to be propped up on VC money with a vague promise of profitability in the future, ideally killing all the traditional competition in the mean time due to their old-fashioned profit requirement. The Spotify CEO's billions come from the abstract market value of the company, not the hard value of the profit it generates. Snapchat got offers to be bought for $3B when they had still not generated a profit. They still barely have. That's not a unique story.
The only way to stop cycles like that are to actually vote, and be involved when these laws are being rewritten in favor of the 1%. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, just fact. There are hardly any people in America that have ran huge businesses that fail that don’t walk away stinking rich while everyone down the ladder from them suffer more and more until the bottom.
@@Natemasterflex Vote for who? At least in the UK or the US, there's nobody to vote for that would make a difference in this matter, or other matters of inequality. Only strengthening unionisation and some kind of massive campaign will stand any chance of affecting the power of the wealthy. And then sooner or later, the power of centrists needs to be dismantled, but this is all we've got in the short term.
I don't think indie musicians should feel entitled to get paid enough to live off of. Music is a business and the most stable way to get paid is to work for others (like be writers or session musicians). Just like everyone who starts a business, there's a huge chance that it's not gonna work out. I do think super rich billionaires shouldnt exist but the reason why we call rich people the 1% is cuz they're the very few lucky ones who made or inherited successful businesses. Making music is a fun job and I think it's pretty backwards to want to have as much pay as someone who suffers through tedium and monotony for minimum wage.
you will be forever in my prayers for making this video Ben, thank you very much dear sir
Starting to regret my move to the US... I used to be able to rent both an apartment and my own studio space in Germany for just about $400 plus $80 for artist’s healthcare and retirement. Now my wife and I pay $2500 in rent alone😭
Why did you leave a first world country for the US? I would desperately love to move to central Europe…
I love your videos and I really love this breakdown. Especially that you went into finances which is a massive taboo in the western world for some reason.
I would of honestly removed my adblock from your channel on yourtube, but youtube has become extremely aggressive recently adding 9 minutes of adds before the video even begins without me being able to skip them ... That's literally half the time of your video in pre-roll adds
As an aspiring musician in high school, this.. makes me sad :(
Don't be sad Mr.Piebro. Keep bringing your true self to every moment of honing in or making your art. And keep looking around for opportunities. Opportunities always appear when no one expects [any more].
@@nobodys2358 thanks man I appreciate it
Learn how to get good at gigging and merchandising. That's where you will make your money! Good luck to you!
@@suprchickn7745 as to you :)
Just wanted to say! I was one of those ppl who originally heard your music from stepmania packs back in the 2000's. I later then did download your discography from bittorrent. since then you have been one of my most inspiring musicians and was super thankful to have met you backstage at one of your concerts in Brooklynn. Thank you! I never liked Itunes and other big media platforms hosting to sell music. Always preferred to buy direct from artists websites and see them in concert when possible. As a electronic musician myself I rather keep my music free to my audience and have my hobby job paid for by companies that want rights to use my tracks in games and vids.
Love what you are doing and bringing a lot of awareness conversations on your channel these days!
Really educational. I've never heard the dynamic between indi artists and Spotify (and other streaming services too it seems) explained in such a clear way, and pointing the finger at the right people. I've only recently discovered your content, as I've been watching tons of synth reviews and, obviously, you (and loopop) have been visited a lot in that endeavor.
I think what strikes me as completely bizarre about the music industry is the fact that marketing appeal is a more valuable commodity than musical talent. It's like the music industry sells image, and the music is just an extra, like a nice scarf. And imo it's totally stupid that I need to search in obscure places to find really interesting music, because any service that's become "mainstream" becomes a service selling image, and I'm looking for interesting music. Anyway, enough of that rant. I like your content.
Yep. That’s why I let time be my filter. As Squarepusher said in an interview from a few years ago, “my influences are mostly from 40-50 years ago and paying attention to how the greats did things.” He also had an on point diatribe about the conformity of music culture, towards profit-surely relevant here.
The most friendly service to indie musicians is Bandcamp. It has no shitty subscriptions. It's something totally different. You can listen to any song (or album) about 10 times. Then, if you want to listen to that specific song/artist/album more, you have to pay. Bandcamp takes like 10%, and, all the 90% goes to the creator. It is by far the most friendly service to indie musicians.
@@iutisteli4726 Yep! Now if we could just get more people to actually be aware of it and actually use it.
As a consumer I love Spotify, but as an artist I hate Spotify and what it does to music. Songs get shorter. There's going to be a track called "I Hate Too Short Songs" and yes, mostly on Spotify. It will be a settlement to all artists who support something like that and all consumers, because it makes me angry to listen to extra short produced songs that I can't use for DJing.
This track is pure sarcasm because it's only 1:32 long. This is an absolute no-go for such a genre like house.
And such no-go tracks make me really angry. NOW I FIGHT BACK. When the other sceduled tracks will be released one after another then this track will come online everywhere. Can't tell exactly when. But i will publish this. I AM DONE!!!!!
What is spotify?
Also, brb, need to check by torrent stats.
long time flashbulb listener here. never heard you speak before, was absolutely blown away by your insight into this subject. thank you for being so frank and honest about it. i hope you never change your values, but at the same time i hope things pick up for you financially so you can spend more time with your family and write more music (and play video games of course hah)
Spotify, like all such services, is a highly closed, centralized data silo. Nobody but they gets meaningful access to the platforms metadata - a crucial prerequisite for value creation in our networked world. Additionally, all of these platforms core systems are completely in-transparent by design (rating & discovery algorithms etc.), tilting the balance of power even further in favor of the platform operators and their opaque interests. While this closed approach is annoying for listeners (total service lock-in: no inter-opt with other services, etc.. Soft-censorship: payed placements etc.) - for musicians and labels (beyond a few giants) its catastrophic in the long run. In comparison, the software world has become far more sophisticated when dealing with such topics, which is one of the reasons that "open source" has become so important there.
Why there isn't kind of an OpenSource spotify? Kind of like if you were able to create playlists in bandcamp?
Man, I love Telefon Tel Aviv! I discovered Immolate Yourself it feels like more than 10 years ago, and since then they've been a band I deeply respect and that influenced my music taste deeply. That's very cool that you knew them!
When does "paying your dues" ever end?
For most it doesn't.
I'm not a music producer, but I consume hours a day while I work from home, and spotify allows me to have access to so much music. I pay for premium and I am not afraid to listen to artists I have never heard of, so I am always discovering new music to enjoy. Without spotify I would be listening to the dozen or so albums from established artists that I have enjoyed for decades. I understand the artists complaint, but there needs to be acknowledgement that I spend money every month on music that, without spotify, would be spent somewhere else. Just my $0.02, and I want to applaud you for putting this out there, it is a conversation that needs to be made.
To be honest, this is a very tough question since as a consumer/music fan, I love Spotify.
It is my go-to place to listen to music and it's so convenient that (almost) all music I listen to is available there, in one single place.
But from the perspective of an artist (both as myself since I started producing, and from seeing other aritsts talk about it), it's definitely far from ideal.
+1. I recognise your sacrifice Benn. Keep striving, music is better for having you around.
For all the convenience Spotify offers, it has robbed us of the magic of buying and carefully listening to a new record.
It hasn't robbed us of that experience, consumers specifically chose convenience over that experience. There's definitely something magical about buying and playing vinyl, but digital music is _clearly_ the superior choice, which is something that even Benn would tell you.
@@dstutz i don't necessarily mean a physical record. For example, the records i own on bandcamp are something i cherish more than my spotify playlists. Not quite sure why, there is some kind of psychological reason behind it I guess...
@@thomas.moerman it's not robbed you of that experience then, since digital and physical media still exist that give you that experience. It's enabled more people to enjoy more music in more situations
@@lunchpin403 thanks for illustrating the perils of using a figure of speech on the internet.
Unfortunately squeezing as much money as possible out of the people at the bottom is common now in many corporations, not just the streaming industry... the people at the top just can't get enough of money even if their entry level employees get sick and eventually die from the stress...
Judging by the comments it sounds like the majority favor convenience over helping put food on the artists table, BECAUSE HAVING TO PRESS ON THE SCREEN A FEW MORE TIMES ON BANDCAMP IS SO MUCH WORK
Thing is tho artists shouldn't feel entitled to have food handed to them. Art and making money from it hinges on the public's consumption of it, and yes the public does LOVES convenience. Especially the uninformed. Streaming is cheaper on the consumer's end compared to buying albums on bandcamp, and seeing how today everyone wants to only listen to music they like, its super unrealistic for someone buy an album they don't know if they'll like yet.
@@moriahmars1462 What artists do feel entitled though? You don’t need to buy albums on bandcamp; you can buy individual songs. It’s up to the artist if they choose to block certain songs from streaming though. If more artists cared less about just trying to get exposure everywhere they could all say ‘I’m not being paid fairly so I’m only going to be on Bandcamp where they respect my wellbeing’. It wouldn’t be hard to sheepdog everyone away from Spotify. It’s on the artists. You can choose to have more exposure and perpetuate the tradition of artists being ripped off or you can have some dignity and try to change the system for the better.
@@moriahmars1462 What you saw wasn't what I meant at all so most of your argument doesn't apply to what I'm saying. I'm not even an artist. Bandcamp artists choose their prices. They respect artists. daily.bandcamp.com/features/update-on-bandcamp-fridays . Even if you put a price on your music people can still stream it for free as long as the song is set to be streamed regardless.
Artists should be more concerned about the quality of their audience instead of the quality but the need for exposure is so much they throw themselves at every outlet making nothing while perpetuating the systemic tradition of being ripped off. This isn't about e-begging and when you have millions of people paying 10 bucks a month on top of other media subscriptions it's a bit obtuse to say everyone else is as broke as the artist. You can't generalize either because the spectrum is vast. Now I understand some artists have no problem giving their art away for free so they don't apply to this. If artists want to make a living and think their art has value then they really need to think about the price and stick to who respects that. Putting yourself out on every platform and spending a bunch of time and energy to promote yourself to make a few bucks is undignifying and it shouldn't be up to the artist to do the marketing. That's not their job and it interferes with the artistic self.
Quality fans can do that. Respect yourself and other artists. They need to respect themselves, their work and stop perpetuating the system of being ripped off.
The one thing that I DEEPLY dislike about streaming services, is the opaque lack of transparency about how much they pay for each stream, and what constitutes a stream. NOWHERE do I see a clear, upfront "payments" table, on their sites. AND they can change those payouts per stream, at any given time. Just like Amazon cuts their affiliate commission rates whenever they feel like it!
Would be fair to have just SOME sort of agreement between the artists and the streaming service, solidifying/insuring the artist's streaming revenue one way or another. Something like "Spotify can not alter the pay per stream amount for a released album" or "If Spotify wants to change the previously agreed upon pay per stream, the artist will be notified 6 months in advance, AND the artist will have the choice of accepting the change, or staying with the originally agreed upon payment structure." (I know those examples are a bit trite and optimistic, but hey...)
This is also a great case for UBI; people are always so quick to tell creatives that they need to temper their expectations, when the world literally stops without art. Literally. Fucking. Stops.
Extraordinary content, wish I'd found your channel sooner. More soonerly. Earlier.
I bought Telefon Tel-Aviv records in the 2000s; I have and will continue to pronounce it like "tel-a-thon". And the music is brilliant.
You're amazing at explaining things fairly. I'd support you for this alone. Should I try your stuff on Spotify? Hurts to think about now.
Incidentally, Spotify did introduce me to dozens of new artists I'd never known otherwise. Band camp is great but expensive comparatively -- even if you want to support artists it's one or two albums per month of sportily -- hard to justify as a consumer even if you know what's right.