As soon as my new music is done, I'm setting it up on my website for sale. Plus You can stream my music off my website, I do not need any other platform. People need to wake up, and thank you for giving us the real. I have to put myself in those shoes of following the trends. Just going along with the norms. But I am also a man who thinks and questions things. So glad I woke up and have a new found path. Thank you Gif
Would you need a 3rd party app to stream it or would it have to be downloaded? This is a much better way of doing it for the artist. Ensures you get all the money. Good luck. I hope it takes off.
@@AI-yc8om yea I am tired of being sucked dry of my hard earned money. These platforms hype you up just to bring you in. Then they use you! Just drive your traffic to your own website and be done with this system.
@@oO5Dynasty I've been thinking how a website would work. If you sold a song for download just for 10 cents, and you had a million downloads (I'm just hypothesising), that's a 100k. Spotify would only have given you 3k! 😡
facts. its going to come to a point to where if any artist want to make money digitally you will have to sign to a major label. that indie market will collapse soon and they will make sure it does.
I agree 1,000%. This is a HUGE royalty grab by UMG and the other majors. And a huge middle finger to all the indies out there, especially the upstart artists.
Yeah, and the language. The part where he mentions steering discovery toward "real artists" they're defining a real artist as someone with over 1K streams. Basically, that could mean you need to reach 1K streams before Spotify will give any assistance with their algorithm or promotion. If you get your streams through algorithmic playlists and don't have actual fans you can use to get those initial streams, you might get knocked off. So, a producer that gets on those playlists but listeners don't know or care who they are, that gravy train could come to a full stop. It's not about who gets under 1,000 streams, it's about who they feel brings value to Spotify. If you're getting streams through playlists, they're effectively looking at you like an opening act that shouldn't get paid because you're only being seen because of the headliner. Your reward is sharing the same space.
@@Payusnomind Everyone knows the majors also manipulates the streams and commits streaming fraud. Yet we all know that they will not be penalized for it. The majors definitely did a complete grab on everyone. Not only will they get paid more, but they're going to manipulate the streams and force fans to choose to listen to their artists.
They already do. Notice how there's no Dislike button on Spotify? If you're streaming a song in a playlist, you can remove the song from the playlist but you can't say you don't like it. There's no "Don't recommend this to me" option. Once a song plays for at least 30 seconds, it's in your algorithm and will be recommended to you more often. They're anti-user choice. What they want is for streaming to operate like radio where you get the same artists and songs every day all day.
@@Payusnomind Exactly! And I agree with you that this is a direct assault on the indie distributors! Majority of their royalties comes from the bottom 90% artists. Now making it where the earnings will only come from the top 10% will be a devastating blow to all indie labels and distributors out there.
The 1,000 stream threshold will reduce the revenues of digital distributors, and probably put many of them out of business. If other streaming sites (e.g. Apple and Amazon) adopt this model, UMG and others will regain total control of the market. As a result, indie artists will be unable to create an international fanbase. Today its 1,000; tomorrow it could be 5,000.
Just read an article about how Tidal and UMG "partnered" a year ago and wanna bring the "artist centric model" to Tidal in order to "better reward the value provided by artists and more closely reflect the engagement of TIDAL subscribers with those artists and music they love". Which of course means "reward the artists we deem worthy so we can pay our shareholders". UMG has been busy this year.
You know evil never sleeps. That's why good can never sleep. The industry is full of certified scumbags. I'm old enough to remember when they tried to sue a 12 year old girl for $2,000 for illegally downloading music. Came after her grandfather too. And tried to lobby congress to make file sharing a felony offense - as if what the world needs is more people in prison.
Thank you for not only keeping us informed, but also for your deep analysis on all these subjects. I would like to know your opinion about something: what do you think would happen if, protesting against this issue, most small independent artists (talking about people who know they are not getting close to those 1,000 streams per song per year) simply stopped releasing on Spotify? I think most distributors let you choose which stores you want to release your music on. What if a significant number of small independent artists just uncheck Spotify?
@@errolmichaelphillips7763 Yeah, maybe it's time for new streaming services that focus on indie artists to start popping up (don't know if Bandcamp is close to that). Sure, they won't have the millions of clients/listeners that Spotify has, but there's definitely a market for that. Some people like discovering new bands, or want to hear what most bands/artists of specific genres and sub-genres have to offer. Deep down, I guess Spotify knows that; they could've simply said "we're done with small independent artists, we don't want them anymore", but, as Gif hinted at, they still want that money from small independent musicians, they still want to offer these catalogues to their clients [like record stores that have vinyl and CDs from smaller artists: if nobody ever bought those albums they would've never carried them and they would've just offered records from hugely popular acts]. With these threshold, if independent artists just go "oh, well, such is life" or complain but keep uploading their music there, then certainly nothing is going to change. Now, if streaming sites suddenly discovered that more and more indie artists are going away, do you think that would have an impact?
Its a complicated issue. There are genuinely talented artists out there but they're being smothered by people distributing very lacklustre music. We now have people who are not musicians and can't play an instrument or sing, releasing tons of music. This is ruining it for the bonafide artists who can seriously make a living from music. The whole music streaming industry is just wrong. It needs a complete overhaul. How that will happen, I have no idea. Maybe there is a just a 3rd party app which is not a streaming site but you can download a song, straight from an artists website/social media page, which plays the song. VLC or something. How it is monetized, I don't know. Maybe ads on the artists page. This is off the top of my head and I've not thought about it but obviously there are people who could make it work.
It's a failed model. Talent, alone, has never been popular. It takes a marketing budget, a marketing team, and great business talent. Most artists, are artists. Their focus is the creation of art. Most of these artists are operating solitarily. They're not doing open mics, showcases, or their own shows. Many of them don't even have support within their own networks of friends and family. They have to advertise and a lot of them don't know how or can't afford to do it. On top of that, everybody doesn't have that special something. That's what makes the people that do so, well, special. Everybody wants to be in the front, but you have people who are great songwriters that just don't have the personality and look to be the front man. What we perceive to be a problem to be solved is arguably not a problem. If someone is an amazing guitarist and they play guitar on Instagram they'll find success, no Spotify needed. If people are moved by your talent, they could see you singing in the subway, record it, post it to social media and launch your career. This thing with Spotify is a moral issue of whether it's ok to allow people take change out of the cup of a homeless person. Record companies want to maintain control and are effectively adopting the model "if you can't beat em, cheat" Artists are aware of the fact that they've been buying up digital distribution and independent media for years. They want complete and total control.
@@Payusnomind Great insight as always. I always come to your channel for advice. Not for me, my daughter is just starting out and going to release stuff next year but I'm tasked to learning the industry. The more you learn, the more daunting it becomes. Luckily she is a performer and can make a living from that. She is releasing her stuff because its very good and it would be a shame that nobody gets to hear it. Plus it is exciting!
The best way to go is to build support and focus on that. Demand, has to come before supply. If you start with a network of supporters you can find out what to sell them. Maybe they won't buy music, maybe they will. Maybe they'll buy physical music but not digital. Maybe they're only willing to pay for experiences. Generally, create demand to supply vs. creating supply then trying to generate demand.
@@Payusnomind Absolutely. This is where the social media platforms come in. Snapchat and TikTok paid ads. More you release, more fans will be collected along the way. Sell your song for download on your website and take all the royalties. Working out splits maybe a bit more complicated.
People who release "bad music" will make little or no impact on the fortunes of those who make "good music". The public will not accept "bad music". Besides, who gets to decide what music I should listen to?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎵 *Introduction to Spotify and Universal Music Group's Conflict* - Spotify's new streaming model and artist monetization threshold are influenced by Universal Music Group's push for an artist-centric royalty model. 01:33 🌐 *Evolution of Spotify and Major Record Labels* - Spotify's initial purpose was to combat file sharing and illegal downloading, turning it into a revenue source for the music industry. - Major record labels benefited from Spotify's model, taking up to 80% of revenue generated from streams. - Streaming revolutionized music discovery, replacing traditional promotion methods and leading to a resurgence in the music industry. 03:09 🔄 *Transformation in Music Consumption* - Spotify and streaming platforms changed the music consumption landscape, shifting from physical stores to online streaming. - Discovery on playlists became equivalent to a sale, with every stream contributing to an artist's revenue. - The ability to force music on listeners through strategic placements on playlists altered the industry dynamics. 04:58 💰 *Current Revenue Model and User-Centric Proposal* - The current model pays artists based on the total number of streams, neglecting individual listener contributions. - The proposed user-centric model, paying artists based on individual listener consumption, faced rejection due to revenue declines for top artists. - The industry debate revolves around rewarding artists for driving engagement on the platform. 05:55 📈 *Universal Music Group's Perspective on Engagement* - Universal Music Group aims to ensure that real artists with genuine fan bases are fairly rewarded for their platform engagement. - Emphasis on engagement rather than what happens after the listener arrives on the platform. - This perspective aligns with Universal Music Group's recent licensing deal with Spotify. 06:34 🔄 *Addressing Streaming Fraud and Noise* - Lucian Grainge's statements about stricter fraud detection focus on protecting streaming royalties for legitimate artists. - Instances of streaming fraud, like Justin Bieber's directed engagement tactics, raise questions about industry priorities. - The need to distinguish meaningful engagement from noise in the streaming landscape. 07:14 🤔 *Conclusion and Critical Analysis* - Lucian Grainge's statements are questioned, emphasizing the distinction between "real" artists and content with minimal engagement. - The spin cycle in public discourse and attempts to manipulate narratives within the music industry. - Encouragement for viewers to form their opinions and engage in the ongoing discussion. Made with HARPA AI
Access Exclusive Content: payusnomind.info
Product Recommendations & Discounts
CD Baby: 50% Discount: bit.ly/44IGCfZ (Promo code: PUNM23SINGLE or PUNM23ALBUM)
Tunecore 20% Discount: bit.ly/42zzf8X
Venice Distribution 25% Discount: bit.ly/3SbZPDu
Distrokid 7% Discount: bit.ly/3UCekz1
Playlist Push: - 7.5% OFF use Promo code (LMAJ28A): bit.ly/3Gj6BRZ
Tunecore Publishing - 20% OFF: bit.ly/42zzf8X
As soon as my new music is done, I'm setting it up on my website for sale. Plus You can stream my music off my website, I do not need any other platform. People need to wake up, and thank you for giving us the real. I have to put myself in those shoes of following the trends. Just going along with the norms. But I am also a man who thinks and questions things. So glad I woke up and have a new found path. Thank you Gif
Would you need a 3rd party app to stream it or would it have to be downloaded? This is a much better way of doing it for the artist. Ensures you get all the money. Good luck. I hope it takes off.
@@DudeSilad oh with my website people can login and listen to the music.. It can also be downloaded
@@oO5Dynasty I’m with you bro!
@@AI-yc8om yea I am tired of being sucked dry of my hard earned money. These platforms hype you up just to bring you in. Then they use you! Just drive your traffic to your own website and be done with this system.
@@oO5Dynasty I've been thinking how a website would work. If you sold a song for download just for 10 cents, and you had a million downloads (I'm just hypothesising), that's a 100k. Spotify would only have given you 3k! 😡
facts. its going to come to a point to where if any artist want to make money digitally you will have to sign to a major label. that indie market will collapse soon and they will make sure it does.
exposing them boys
I agree 1,000%. This is a HUGE royalty grab by UMG and the other majors. And a huge middle finger to all the indies out there, especially the upstart artists.
Yeah, and the language. The part where he mentions steering discovery toward "real artists" they're defining a real artist as someone with over 1K streams. Basically, that could mean you need to reach 1K streams before Spotify will give any assistance with their algorithm or promotion. If you get your streams through algorithmic playlists and don't have actual fans you can use to get those initial streams, you might get knocked off. So, a producer that gets on those playlists but listeners don't know or care who they are, that gravy train could come to a full stop. It's not about who gets under 1,000 streams, it's about who they feel brings value to Spotify. If you're getting streams through playlists, they're effectively looking at you like an opening act that shouldn't get paid because you're only being seen because of the headliner. Your reward is sharing the same space.
@@Payusnomind Everyone knows the majors also manipulates the streams and commits streaming fraud. Yet we all know that they will not be penalized for it. The majors definitely did a complete grab on everyone. Not only will they get paid more, but they're going to manipulate the streams and force fans to choose to listen to their artists.
They already do. Notice how there's no Dislike button on Spotify? If you're streaming a song in a playlist, you can remove the song from the playlist but you can't say you don't like it. There's no "Don't recommend this to me" option. Once a song plays for at least 30 seconds, it's in your algorithm and will be recommended to you more often. They're anti-user choice. What they want is for streaming to operate like radio where you get the same artists and songs every day all day.
@@Payusnomind Exactly! And I agree with you that this is a direct assault on the indie distributors! Majority of their royalties comes from the bottom 90% artists. Now making it where the earnings will only come from the top 10% will be a devastating blow to all indie labels and distributors out there.
The 1,000 stream threshold will reduce the revenues of digital distributors, and probably put many of them out of business. If other streaming sites (e.g. Apple and Amazon) adopt this model, UMG and others will regain total control of the market. As a result, indie artists will be unable to create an international fanbase. Today its 1,000; tomorrow it could be 5,000.
Just read an article about how Tidal and UMG "partnered" a year ago and wanna bring the "artist centric model" to Tidal in order to "better reward the value provided by artists and more closely reflect the engagement of TIDAL subscribers with those artists and music they love". Which of course means "reward the artists we deem worthy so we can pay our shareholders". UMG has been busy this year.
You know evil never sleeps. That's why good can never sleep. The industry is full of certified scumbags. I'm old enough to remember when they tried to sue a 12 year old girl for $2,000 for illegally downloading music. Came after her grandfather too. And tried to lobby congress to make file sharing a felony offense - as if what the world needs is more people in prison.
@@Payusnomind I remember that also. I was dl music at that time and felt bad for that young lady.
Thank you for not only keeping us informed, but also for your deep analysis on all these subjects. I would like to know your opinion about something: what do you think would happen if, protesting against this issue, most small independent artists (talking about people who know they are not getting close to those 1,000 streams per song per year) simply stopped releasing on Spotify? I think most distributors let you choose which stores you want to release your music on. What if a significant number of small independent artists just uncheck Spotify?
The indie artists will lose fans, and the distributors will lose revenue. Both are facing tough times if other streaming sites adopt this model.
@@errolmichaelphillips7763 Yeah, maybe it's time for new streaming services that focus on indie artists to start popping up (don't know if Bandcamp is close to that). Sure, they won't have the millions of clients/listeners that Spotify has, but there's definitely a market for that. Some people like discovering new bands, or want to hear what most bands/artists of specific genres and sub-genres have to offer. Deep down, I guess Spotify knows that; they could've simply said "we're done with small independent artists, we don't want them anymore", but, as Gif hinted at, they still want that money from small independent musicians, they still want to offer these catalogues to their clients [like record stores that have vinyl and CDs from smaller artists: if nobody ever bought those albums they would've never carried them and they would've just offered records from hugely popular acts]. With these threshold, if independent artists just go "oh, well, such is life" or complain but keep uploading their music there, then certainly nothing is going to change. Now, if streaming sites suddenly discovered that more and more indie artists are going away, do you think that would have an impact?
Its a complicated issue. There are genuinely talented artists out there but they're being smothered by people distributing very lacklustre music. We now have people who are not musicians and can't play an instrument or sing, releasing tons of music. This is ruining it for the bonafide artists who can seriously make a living from music. The whole music streaming industry is just wrong. It needs a complete overhaul. How that will happen, I have no idea. Maybe there is a just a 3rd party app which is not a streaming site but you can download a song, straight from an artists website/social media page, which plays the song. VLC or something. How it is monetized, I don't know. Maybe ads on the artists page. This is off the top of my head and I've not thought about it but obviously there are people who could make it work.
It's a failed model. Talent, alone, has never been popular. It takes a marketing budget, a marketing team, and great business talent. Most artists, are artists. Their focus is the creation of art. Most of these artists are operating solitarily. They're not doing open mics, showcases, or their own shows. Many of them don't even have support within their own networks of friends and family. They have to advertise and a lot of them don't know how or can't afford to do it. On top of that, everybody doesn't have that special something. That's what makes the people that do so, well, special. Everybody wants to be in the front, but you have people who are great songwriters that just don't have the personality and look to be the front man. What we perceive to be a problem to be solved is arguably not a problem. If someone is an amazing guitarist and they play guitar on Instagram they'll find success, no Spotify needed. If people are moved by your talent, they could see you singing in the subway, record it, post it to social media and launch your career. This thing with Spotify is a moral issue of whether it's ok to allow people take change out of the cup of a homeless person. Record companies want to maintain control and are effectively adopting the model "if you can't beat em, cheat" Artists are aware of the fact that they've been buying up digital distribution and independent media for years. They want complete and total control.
@@Payusnomind Great insight as always. I always come to your channel for advice. Not for me, my daughter is just starting out and going to release stuff next year but I'm tasked to learning the industry. The more you learn, the more daunting it becomes. Luckily she is a performer and can make a living from that. She is releasing her stuff because its very good and it would be a shame that nobody gets to hear it. Plus it is exciting!
The best way to go is to build support and focus on that. Demand, has to come before supply. If you start with a network of supporters you can find out what to sell them. Maybe they won't buy music, maybe they will. Maybe they'll buy physical music but not digital. Maybe they're only willing to pay for experiences. Generally, create demand to supply vs. creating supply then trying to generate demand.
@@Payusnomind Absolutely. This is where the social media platforms come in. Snapchat and TikTok paid ads. More you release, more fans will be collected along the way. Sell your song for download on your website and take all the royalties. Working out splits maybe a bit more complicated.
People who release "bad music" will make little or no impact on the fortunes of those who make "good music". The public will not accept "bad music". Besides, who gets to decide what music I should listen to?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎵 *Introduction to Spotify and Universal Music Group's Conflict*
- Spotify's new streaming model and artist monetization threshold are influenced by Universal Music Group's push for an artist-centric royalty model.
01:33 🌐 *Evolution of Spotify and Major Record Labels*
- Spotify's initial purpose was to combat file sharing and illegal downloading, turning it into a revenue source for the music industry.
- Major record labels benefited from Spotify's model, taking up to 80% of revenue generated from streams.
- Streaming revolutionized music discovery, replacing traditional promotion methods and leading to a resurgence in the music industry.
03:09 🔄 *Transformation in Music Consumption*
- Spotify and streaming platforms changed the music consumption landscape, shifting from physical stores to online streaming.
- Discovery on playlists became equivalent to a sale, with every stream contributing to an artist's revenue.
- The ability to force music on listeners through strategic placements on playlists altered the industry dynamics.
04:58 💰 *Current Revenue Model and User-Centric Proposal*
- The current model pays artists based on the total number of streams, neglecting individual listener contributions.
- The proposed user-centric model, paying artists based on individual listener consumption, faced rejection due to revenue declines for top artists.
- The industry debate revolves around rewarding artists for driving engagement on the platform.
05:55 📈 *Universal Music Group's Perspective on Engagement*
- Universal Music Group aims to ensure that real artists with genuine fan bases are fairly rewarded for their platform engagement.
- Emphasis on engagement rather than what happens after the listener arrives on the platform.
- This perspective aligns with Universal Music Group's recent licensing deal with Spotify.
06:34 🔄 *Addressing Streaming Fraud and Noise*
- Lucian Grainge's statements about stricter fraud detection focus on protecting streaming royalties for legitimate artists.
- Instances of streaming fraud, like Justin Bieber's directed engagement tactics, raise questions about industry priorities.
- The need to distinguish meaningful engagement from noise in the streaming landscape.
07:14 🤔 *Conclusion and Critical Analysis*
- Lucian Grainge's statements are questioned, emphasizing the distinction between "real" artists and content with minimal engagement.
- The spin cycle in public discourse and attempts to manipulate narratives within the music industry.
- Encouragement for viewers to form their opinions and engage in the ongoing discussion.
Made with HARPA AI
good one bro.
Please sir please what about cd baby please can I upload audio album on cd baby Relaxing music types of music?
😂