This shouldn't have to be said, and I wish it didn't, but PLEASE do NOT "told ya so" or send this video to people who have been laid off by Spotify this morning. They were promised a career with a functional business and are now devastated and possibly wondering how they'll pay rent next month.
You're just trying to nanny the internet, and that has never worked out for anyone ever. if you're trying to ward off personal future guilt by asking people not to "told ya so", then, that's a bit of a losing proposition. People clicked your video to reinforce their biases, they will then parade the corpse of Spotify around, as a personal victory, because this is just another tribe and that's what people do, because people are petty, impulsive and sheepish. Besides, figuring out how to pay rent next month is pretty much the norm for most of Americans, so why should we have unique sympathies for former spotify employees? Spotify employees made more money than the average person will ever see, so why should the average poor-as-dirt person feel sympathy for them? Though, the opposite is also true. Spotify and its employees don't deserve unique ire, though they will get it and that's at least in part because of videos on RUclips which stoke and emblazon peoples negative predilections.. Most people are complete shit bags, and imploring them to lean on their better morals is a losing proposition.
benn you're a smart lad. you played a show w my boy aaron (bleep bloop) in atlanta some years back. im from new york and couldnt go but it looked legendary. much love dawg
@@RealHomeRecording Spotify employees have been driving vans around the bohemian parts of US cities, offering exposure to buskers who are never seen again.
I'm going to be honest and say that I've discovered more new music I like through the Spotify algorithms than I ever did when I bought all my music on iTunes.
I feel like we can't have both ways when it comes to music. Great discovery with Spotify or very niche targetting with indie publishers and hope it gets found organically? Conundrum..
I wouldn't know half of my current favorite artists without Spotify.. i hear everything you're saying, but Spotify has literally been a godsend to me. I wish it was more profitable to the artists. My main way of supporting my favorite artists is just buying their tshirts. But I don't nearly make enough money to be buying everyone i listen to's album. Especially not their whole damn discography.
@@daltonbedore8396 Its pretty bad industry wide and as stated in the video the payment still falls even for tidal and the rest so its better for us to demand change for the whole industry. Also Spotify has one of, if not the, largest library of artists and songs so if you do leave there is a risk that your favourite artist isn't even there especially if they are more obsure.
Then you don’t make enough money to listen to their music lol It is work which you are consuming for nothing in return I realize you’re incentivized but it was never your only option It is solely a reflection on you And yeah, you’re in a big crowd, but you’re still a shitty person
When nearly 70% of Spotify’s revenue go to pay out record labels in music royalties, it’s hardly surprising to see Spotify to still struggle to turn profitable despite operating for 16+ years and has 10+billion euro in revenues. The record labels’ stranglehold over Spotify is the real reason why it will fail (if it does). Given the oligopolistic nature of the recording industry, Spotify is unlikely to be able to negotiate better royalty fees in the future, so its only hope is to make money in areas OUTSIDE of music streaming, ironically. This is why they’ve been aggressively pushing into podcasts over the last two years, since they believe they can make better money off of podcasts. I made a video explaining this in more detail, might be interesting to you.
Spotify understood that in order to launch they needed content. Hence the upfront payments to music rights holders to get content from major artists. Just as an individual user, Spotify corporate has to pay Sony et al, continuing royalties to maintain access to the music that users want to stream. This is the "logical side" to blitzscaling, if there is one. If there is an exit strategy to escaping the mob bosses of the music industry, it would be to negotiate with smaller artists, not signed to labels, and PROMOTING them. This is as easy as creating algorithms to perform the A&R function that record labels used to have, but abandoned years ago. In Silicon Valley terms this is known as "cutting off the oxygen" to competitors. Instead Spotify and others are doubling down on the strategy of promoting top streaming artists, which are tied to major labels. This at the expense of decreasing payments to up and coming artists. So yeah, Ben is right, streaming and Spotify is built to fail, and when the music stops and Spotify folds, the $100's you spent for years of subscriptions go poof! You have nothing. Going back to buying CD's is starting to make more sense to me.
@@frankgeick3641But how many people are even there that are indie artist’s loyal fans? Compare that to number of people listening to your Drakes and Weeknds of the industry, it’s literally no comparison. Artists aren’t losing anything by putting their music on Spotify, it’s a way to get better reach that’s all, why would i stop putting my music out to be available to a larger audience? The apparent snowball effect mentioned is only wishful thinking, in reality it is more like an ant clawing at an elephant’s feet.
So why doesn't Spotify make it easier for independent musicians to upload music to their platform? Why doesn't Spotify make playlisting and advertising more transparent. In fact, they do the opposite because they are just as bad as major labels.
It'll always be license holders, labels, publishers that are going to be the heart of all problems in the creative business. You got some nice ones actually acting in the signees interests, but let's face it, it's a cesspool of greedy goblins trying to completely bend over their own customers - while expertly diverting attention to all the entities trying to make that idiotic status quo work. Which is where YT and streaming and all those platforms are, still, like anyone could battle the interests of these billions-USD industries and survive. People complain about Netflix and streaming services removing shows from their catalog. Guess what. stupid owners of even stupider IPs are the reason for fractured markets. People making insane amounts of money off of long dead people, casts, intellectual property... it's a huge scam and there are obvious solutions to this, but it's not like the right people care enough about it quite yet. Spotify is obviously not perfect, like no service ever will be... but they're also not really in a position to negotiate those terms, not even close.
I switched to bandcamp when I realized the importance of owning your content ("What if the artist or, worse, the platform decides to pull this media?") and that most of my favorite artists were pretty indie so I figured that buying a single album probably gave them more money than Spotify ever would from my listening despite the fact that I was paying just as much for Spotify very month.
That's true, but the subscription system is much more convenient, it allows you to easily listen to anything with no limits and to make playlists. Also, me personally, if it weren't for Spotify i would've become a master pirate because I wouldn't be able to afford to buy all the albums that i usually listen to. I'm not saying there isn't a better system, especially in terms of supporting the creators, but i would rather pay 30€ to a music streaming subscription service than have to spend on individual tracks and albums.
@@MrChoklad i'm not sure what you really listen, but i've paid little to nothing for tracks/albums i've liked. Some niche artists allow you to choose amount you want to pay for that track. I'm not rich, to be honest - i'm poor if you can compare me to others. But when there was a track that i could buy on bandcamp and support that creator, i would come up with 1$ or 1.50$ for each song. I know it's not much, but i appreciate that i can pay at least "something", and got pirating it, i also like that bandcamp allows you to download high quality music in .flac or other format. I don't have any headphones or soundcard that can make the difference noticeable but it looks cool :P
Here's an idea. Streaming technology is such that anyone can actually set up a streaming platform especially of its audio only. What if a platform was set up that was specifically for independent artists, and it had no venture capital involved, and it took only a small fixed percentage of revenue to pay cover it's costs. It could be a non profit, with using open source technology, so it could probably avoid taxes. It could provide all of the functionality of Spotify, but being open source people could contribute code to do things like alternative shuffle algorithms, and new features could be outsourced to anyone who just wants to make it a better platform. It could be scalable, it could be able to start small and gather steam. It could get donations from people who want to see it succeed, rather than investors looking for a profit. It would be able to employ a team, whilst providing value to the artists and the fans, because it cuts out the investor class entirely. I see literally no reason why this couldn't work.
I mostly agree - I have said for a long time that Spotify will fail unless they manage to change their deals with the music industry so more money goes back to artists and the labels are either excluded or at least paid a lot less. I don't think the problem is with streaming. The real issue is the middle men. The labels have made a lot of money for a long time and are not willing to go away.. so we need to force them to go away. BTW - I buy albums, but it's getting increasingly hard to find ways to buy albums in MP3-format.
The labels are the only problem here. They take a large share of revenue while providing almost nothing in return. Publishing music is so much easier and cheaper than before so that should be reflected iv the revenue share.
After 3 years on Spotify I have made a grand total of $1.82. I don’t really promote my music because it is something I do solely because it makes me happy so I am not really concerned about the money but a little extra dough would be nice😅 Thank you for the very informative video!
I've always thought what could ultimately doom Spotify is if major record labels each created their own unique streaming services, and took their music off of Spotify and put it behind their own paywall much in the way that Paramount took Star Trek and Disney took Marvel from Netflix, for example. It is not hard to picture that happening at all.
The issue is that they'd have to do it at close to the same time. Otherwise the streaming service will just die, as people still get most of their stuff from Spotify.
As a minor label releasing solely through Bandcamp, we stopped taking a label share of our artists releases back in 2018 because BC label fee’s aren’t that steep and the revenue is so dire for artists that it no longer felt right skimming any more money off the top. We release label samplers / compilations with a ‘Name Your Price’ structure and that’s the only time money goes to the label. Artists that want to contribute donate a track to us as thanks for not being soulless bastards. We scratch each others back… and it works. TBH, we are pretty much doing it for arts sake and for the love of it now. ❤
@@bodyheatmusicchannel I think that where promotion on social media, and good old fashioned touring by playing clubs and bars (now that Covid is over) comes in.
@@sawtooth808 social media promotion is not a way to make an income lol In there you can spend money to promote the music that - if heard - does not give u money as explained. Its a dog biting its own tale, with few huge web institutions eating the whole cake
Funnily enough I wrote a paper at university in 2003 about torrents and music sharing and the fact that the reason the major labels were losing their minds was nothing to do with unrealized sales. It was the decentralized nature and the loss of control. You could see it in the language in all the press releases of the time.
@@foodwav I've no idea. I'm sure I've got hard copies of all my work in a binder somewhere. It'd be interesting to look back on as this was pre streaming, I think it was even pre iTunes perhaps? I'd be interested if what I said would happen did actually happen! I think from memory I thought the majors would get a better handle on it than they did, I didn't expect third party groups (Spotify etc) to formulate but back then labels and publishing houses held all the cards, it was unthinkable that a streaming service would have any power to call any shots.
indeed it follows along with my theory centralized power does not work. when u hand over your sovereignty to one-‘take $ & power we give you to run the country’ they turn on you and use the power against you while enriching themselves. the universally known ‘power currupts, absolute …. absolutely’ is truth! let go of ‘leaders’ ! rule your community yourself w/your neighbors. and damn close to utopia is what we receive..its hard work yes! turn off your tv and meet your neighbors damnit!
As an independent artist, I would prefer music go back to physical/digital sales. Most people would not torrent music but even if it was half of people I’d take it over earning nothing for my music I’ve put thousands of dollars into!
A good general rule of thumb I work to myself - If I enjoy an album enough to listen to it back to back more than once, I should consider buying it either digitally or physically. Bandcamp can do both. Support artists!
How about paying over $120 bucks for a concert? Spotify is great at discovery and playlist. I feel like they are putting less effort into merch anyways but charge 60 bucks for a tshirt at a venue.
That’s what I do. Every so often I budget $30-$40 to spend on albums and I think about the ones I really like. I also look for tours, music festivals and sales on clothing, banners, bumper stickers and other merchandise.
I think a very interesting point you forgot to mention is that part of the reason the pay per stream is going is down is because of Spotify policy in developing countries. Because of investors Spotify needs to have a sustained growth of subscribers. In consequence they offer very competitive subscriptions that are 5 times cheaper than in the rest of the world. The rate you get paid depends on where your listener is from.
@@F_imperialists Exactly! If Spotify keep the same subscription price as the US, that is 1/20 of the average salary in my country. Imagine spending 1/20 of your salary just for ONE music subscription.
That might well be true but I doubt it can explain a 30-50% decrease in per stream revenue for smaller artists which probably don't have many people listening from these countries.
@@F_imperialists If your finances are that low, don't subscribe to anything, get a cheap radio and try and build yourself up ($$)
Год назад+11
And rightly so. Many countries have concert discounts for students. The same goes for Spotify and even AutoCAD. When graduates start earning, they will buy the products they liked while the discounts were available.
Hey y'all. I intend to do a stream or followup addressing some of the great questions here in the comments. I'm reading them all! 🙏🏼😁 EDIT: and here it is ruclips.net/video/-9qUfJme4eU/видео.html
Thanks! One thing I’ve noticed is the rise of spam songs on Spotify - people gaming the system with auto-generated songs exactly one minute long with stock photo album covers. I can’t even listen to radio mode anymore. I assume bot listeners are using these to generate royalties. I wonder how much effect that’s having on the royalty rate per stream going down?
@@dancrowdus also of note: - spotify pads some editorial playlists with production music it's bought outright under one-off artist names. - several people game the system by re-using title names (generally not copyrighted) or making huge volumes of poor covers - lots of spotify listening is driven by unofficial playlists for popular video games or albums that curators charge artist to submit to (or, against spotify ToS, to be on outright). - playlists mimicking albums that aren't on spotify then have different but somehow similar music, or cover music - big companies with tons of ambient sound albums w/like a hundred 'songs' again just past the 1:00 mark. There's so much dodgy stuff.
I prefer streaming music on RUclips Music....they have the biggest selection of a music streamer; Spotify is missing a lot of music from small labels/artists.. especially some more obscure 80s and 90s electronic music.
Never once Subscribed to Spotify.....I use it every once in a while with ads...but to play 1-3 hour songs....because Spotify will never pit an ad in the middle of a track (so I do it as a way to force them to give me content without ads to support it).
A lot of people say they found so much great musicians through spotify and I agree, I did too. But also I feel like the whole culture of listening to music became more about consuming it. Like in the era of cd players I was going to the music stores and tried to find good albums there. And then I would listen to each album for a very long time and have enough time to appreciate it, learn the story behind it, learn the story of the artist behind it, etc. Novadays my spotify is a crazy mixture of everything on shuffle. I miss listening to the albums, and have albums not be 19-25 minutes long :)
its funny how i can remember all the lyrics from all the albums i owned in the 90´s..But i can´t remember most of lyrics from my spotify lists...Unless is one of the songs from albuns i owned... :D
While I agree with your generalization, all it would take is a few minor UI tweaks to vastly improve this situation so I hesitate to completely condemn streaming/spotify on this basis. They could more-closely enable the tradition of music-finding with a focus on the artist and/or the album, fostering more of a relationship or understanding between artist/listener. I hate how difficult it is to tap precisely on the right pixel of my screen to go to the artist/album associated with the currently playing song (god forbid I'm interested in the featured artist!). I tap the expanding menu more than any other button in the app, just to sort music into playlists or find the albums. Despite its disappointing and generally ineffectual interface, I myself have been addicted to Spotify for at least 3-4 years now. First of all, I'm self-employed (~barely...) so music can be enjoyed at any time of day. Last year I looked back at my *Liked* playlist to gain perspective on my journey. I realized I discovered music at an avg rate of ~10 songs *_per day_* - basically an LP/day for a few years straight, 10K songs! There's absolutely no way I would have been exposed to this much 'likeable' music before but I really have to go out of my way to explore what an artist has to offer. If I'm impressed enough by someone new I'll go through the motions of individually adding their albums that interest me to the playing queue and I'll individually _like_ each song I enjoy. This is easier than it was with previous platforms but still requires way too many clicks and way too much page-loading, considering the Artist's available collection is readily viewable at a whim. I also curate all my own playlists to utilize such a vast collection on a whim, I very rarely shuffle anything anymore. People generally just won't commit to going out of their way like this, compared to just letting play whatever comes their way. Before spotify, I would discover music through YTs algorithm (Perhaps an album or 2 a month? Even that sounds generous.) and then buy it to continue to enjoy it any time, if it was on iTunes. Before that, was Limewire... My combined collection was merely 5k songs after 15 years of these methods. I've also recently grown to to be an audiophile, so I care about the quality/fidelity of my favorite music. Fidelity is higher the closer you go to the source, so I go out of my way to pay for my favorites, as direct-to-artist as I can find digitally.
@@loser-nobody @onem4nb4nd Your entire reply emphasizes the OP's point that listening has become about the ability to consume more and more music rather than having a relationship with the music you're listening to. One or two albums a month gives you some solid listening time to appreciate the music before moving on to something new. You can't convince me that you have the same relationship with your music collection consuming songs at a rate of nearly an album a day. You'll have already lost the ability to re-listen to the majority of them within a few weeks. I also think all the hurdles you have to jump in order to have a semblance of control over your music collection is a deliberate ploy by Spotify and not a failure on their part to tweak the UI. It benefits Spotify for their customers to be disconnected from what they're listening to because it keeps those customers tied to their service. They literally don't know enough about the music they've been consuming to replicate the experience on another platform. Spotify makes it difficult on purpose. Personally, I found using Spotify to be endlessly frustrating and gave up after a few weeks.
I really like electronic music, and I've noticed many of my favourite producers seem pleasantly surprised by Soundcloud these days. Some of them have released stuff exclusively on there and some of them have voiced their surprise at the royalties they've received. I realise that the community is still there for electronic music in a way it isn't for other kinds but I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
I rejoined Soundcloud again recently due to media releases that they were going to pay artists a lot better than other streaming services. Though after about half a year of being on it I found that you had to be "invited" to be paid + you had to have a paid artist account with them to be eligible in the first place. The system on how to get invited was not transparent and it was just costing me money to create content for them, so I jumped back off again.
The monthly payment I was getting from them was paying for my Pro subscription for over a year, so I considered that a win. Then I released a new album and got paid $70 one month and $50 the next. That was, as the kids say, a serious W
When I was a teenager I always bought (or sometimes ripped hehe) entire albums and listen to them on repeat. Someday I started using Spotify and kinda got lost into it. In recent weeks though I started to fall back into old habits and enjoy listening to entire albums again. I think that Spotify is great for discovering new music but I feel like it doesn't encourage to listen to one artist or album. Instead it encourages to listen to playlists, which can be super cool but it is a different way of listening. If you like a song then maybe you like the album and then maybe you like the artist and then the best way to encourage that artist you like to keep producing music you like is to buy their music and I'm 100% ready to do that
see the entire way i listen to music is playlists. since i've been old enough to deliberately listen to what i want to, i've used playlists. i'm hardly ever going to just play an album and i don't think it's reasonable to expect people to start doing that
@@heroinfathr The old debate. It for sure is on Spotifys end to appropiately pay artists but it would also be very punk rock of you if you'd buy music you really like because that's the best way to support the artist
music listening is way easier for people who can just enjoy entire albums. it was personally very easy to make the switch from spotify to buying/downloading for me cuz I don't like using playlists
@@amazingpasta666Same here, I do like playlists, but only if I'm making them. It seems people are using Spotify like the radio, music becomes background noise and there is no emotional connection to the art itself, it's just sounds to drown out the quietness. One of my favorite bands removed their music from Spotify a few years ago, didn't bother me as I already own all their albums, but many fans were upset. IMO, if the music was that good and people truly wanted to support these artists, they would pay for their music, or at the very least, buy merchandise, but they won't, nor do they go to concerts.
Despite all the problems with streaming services, I still like them. I've got many thousands of songs in my spotify library, which would cost an eye-watering amount if I was to buy them individually (and even more if I was to buy every album I have 1-3 songs from). Maybe I'm being unreasonable expecting to get all this for just £10 a month and I should just pay up, but the reality is that if push came to shove, I would only buy a small fraction of my current library. The net result would be that I would give more support to a handful of artists, but no support at all to the rest, while also having a worse experience. Similarly, when artists quit spotify, it doesn't make me go buy their music on another platform, it makes me stop listening to them. I want to listen to music, not faff around switching between 5 different platforms and syncing downloads across 3 different devices and having to put my card details in every time I find something new. I'm happy to pay someone to solve that problem for me and right now Spotify/Apple/Amazon are the best way to get a majority of the music I listen to in one place. Btw, when I was a kid I could not have afforded my (mostly pirated) itunes library for full retail even if I put everything I owned into it - I can't overstate how much the pre-streaming era model sucks for young or low-income people. If Spotify (and the hardware and bandwidth to actually use it ofc) had existed back then it would've been a game changer for me. IMO the problem isn't about streaming services as opposed to buying songs/albums etc, it's that streaming services have recreated the worst aspect of the old system: a tiny percentage of artists get paid more than they could ever spend (more listens AND they get to negotiate better rates), the majority fight over scraps, and the middlemen take a lion's share of the profits of both groups. Streaming services made it worse in some ways (e.g. the algorithm reinforces the rich-get-richer dynamics by favoring already-popular music) but none of the problems are unique to streaming. It's just capitalism. The solution is to divert less money towards platform/record-label-owning capitalists and the top 0.1% of artists and more towards the 99.9%, but the beneficiaries of the current system will fight tooth-and-nail against that. I can't imagine a not-for-profit streaming platform surviving against the big dogs, except as a niche product that's missing a huge percentage of artists from its library. It's almost impossible to start up a new platform - nobody wants to sign up to a platform with 1% of the library of the established options, and artists won't put their music on a platform nobody uses. With enough money you can bootstrap that process by paying the big labels/artists to sign on, but that's exactly what we're trying to avoid (rich-get-richer) and besides, a not-for-profit will never get that kind of investment. If such a platform existed with a library comparable to Spotify's I'd switch over in a heartbeat even if it cost a bit more, I just can't see it getting off the ground. Hell, as a software developer this is would be a perfect intersection of my interests and I'd even be happy to volunteer on a FOSS project to that end. But the problem isn't building it, it's licensing and getting a supermajority of artists on board.
Me too. Neil Young left Spotify. Oh well, bye bye. I rent music with Spotify. I have dozens of playlists with many thousands of songs. I couldn't/wouldn't buy all that. All kinds of music. Same with youTube. The music business has been screwing artists for 100 years. Sad, but not my problem..
I think one factor that may help an open source, or non profit streaming platform succeed, is that people want to give money to artists, if they get the idea that almost all the money they pay goes directly to their favourite artist and the rest goes to a non profit that exists entirely to benefit artists and their fans, then they might sign up to a tiny platform just for that. We need to consider that there's lots of different types of fan, not just normies who want to listen to Top 40 songs in the most convenient and mindless way possible. A tiny family owned restaurant that makes excellent food for a good price can exist in the same market as McDonald's, and they aren't even competing with each other. They have completely different customers. I for example don't subscribe to Spotify, because it doesn't give me what I want. A huge chunk of the music I like isn't on there, I don't like the interface, their shuffle algorithm sucks, it's not great for finding new music for me, and I don't believe in giving money to Big Tech, for the exact reasons outlined in this video. I can't be the only one who feels this way. Such a platform doesn't need millions of subscribers, it could start with just a few. It could also be started by artists potentially.
@@us3r11 That's not how the free market works. Customers will generally go for the easiest choice. The problem is not in the consumer or the provider or the artist. They're doing what is easiest for them to make/save money while getting the quality they desire. The problem lies in legislation from government. The government is the only body powerful enough to restrain a runaway free market.
Benn, seriously, thank you for the work you do. As a musician, songwriter, producer etc. who puts in so much time and money to create music and gets barely anything back, I feel like you're one of the most important voices for us today.
Spotify and algorithms catch a lot of flack but I wouldn't have found out about any of the smaller acts that I now follow without them. It would be back to the 1990s for me where I basically only listen to what's on the radio or what someone brings up as being good... and even then, they have to let me borrow the CD because I'm not paying $15 for a CD of something just to see if it actually is an act I like. Honestly, I'm old enough to where I'd probably just listen to the stuff I'm already familiar with and be happy with that. I feel like record labels are a big part of the artist payment issue. When you look at their financial statements, Spotify pays out about 70 to 80 % of their revenue to record labels and music publishers. I think the question to be asked is are record labels and music publishers paying out anything even remotely close to 70 to 80 % of what Spotify gives them to artists?
Also worth a note - many electronic artists and labels withdrew from Spotify last year due to ethically dubious revaluations about where profits were being invested..
This makes me sad. Spotify has introduced me to so much music, and has reinvigorated my love of rock and roll by letting me listen to so many old albums and bands that I never had a good chance to before. Knowing it is probably going to fail and go away sucks. There is no way I can afford to buy all those songs/albums individually - and I wouldn't even know which ones were even worth considering buying without something like Spotify to introduce me to them. My life as a music fan will be a lot worse without these streaming services.
I get what you’re saying and if you don’t want to give up streaming altogether, platforms like tidal or Qobuz are priced about the same and while they are both still finding their ground in terms of UI and what they have to offer I can say that, for example, tidal’s recommended algo might be better for finding new music. for example: I’ve noticed that it doesn’t just recommend big names in any given genre and it also seems to be able to correlate different artists who are in certain ‘scenes’ regardless of whether said artists sound remotely similar, which is a pretty sophisticated way to approach things imo. I dunno, just my two cents but, if Spotify gets a wake up call from enough people moving away from their site, then maybe they’ll have to adapt in ways that are (let’s at least say) somewhat more mutually beneficial as opposed to predatory. And those other streaming services aren’t leagues better for indie artists, but you don’t have to be leagues better for that difference to make an impact.
@@fredrik303 Read the end of my first comment. I’m aware they’re not as different as many might want them to be. I have also not built my opinion around this one RUclips video… yes other streaming platforms are working off of a similar model, I still disagree with a lot of Spotify’s decisions as a company (more than almost any other platform of a similar ilk) and I still think that IF someone HaS to use a streaming platform they’d be better off using another one. Just my two cents. But by all means, do your own research And make your own educated decision.
I watched this video, myself being one of the naive people who thought that paying a spotify subscription was a fair way to contribute to the industry and was shocked to say the least. Thanks for opening my eyes. Unrelated though, I have to point out the fact that I had no idea who you were until you mentioned The Flashbulb and I realized I have been listening to your music for over three years and... I discovered it through a recommendation in spotify. How ironic and complicated this makes it all. I think I will visit your bandcamp page right now!
I have hope for soundcloud and deezer's new payment model where they take a buck or two off the top of the subscription fee and the rest is distributed to the artists that that individual account listened to, based on how much they listened to which artists. Sure it's not a guaranteed living but it feels like a fair share of what money IS coming in.
From my understanding this is what a RUclips Premium subscription does too and it's awful that Spotify subscriptions don't. Last I heard Spotify collects all the money they are paying out to artists into a big pot and then distributes it out based on collective listen time. It doesn't take much to realize you can set up a bot farm to continually listen to certain artists on free accounts and siphon away more of that payout from those that don't do that.
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 This has nothing to do with how much money Spotify pays out, just with how they proportion it. They wouldn't be paying out any more if they switched to how RUclips Premium does it.
I have been on Deezer for a year now because they said they would use the user centric payment system, but so far they still didn't do anything about it. When will they finally implement it? Now they pay artists even less per stream than Spotify.
Spotify's value proposition is making tons of music easily available. It is easy to say that people could create decentralized equivalents to all of these social media companies, but I think that glosses over the fact that making good software is really hard.
I agree with you. A decentralized solution assumes that there are a bunch of talented coders who are very passionate about music (or also right music) and are willing to build very complex software which will likely take years for almost no personal benefit. It’s just not realistic. If software engineering was quite easy, then sure, but then the world would be vastly different.
Agreed. Building and maintaining the infrastructure of a service like Spotify which serves millions of users is a massive technical challenge. To build a decentralized platform which does the same thing while providing the kind of experience that users expect would take the technical challenge to a whole other level. This is not going to happen, at least not in this decade. As great as it would be to see some kind of open-source, decentralized content distribution platform, it would be a massive undertaking requiring millions of man-hours donated for free. In fact, I'm not convinced it's even possible to have a decentralized media distribution platform in today's world which provides the kind of seamless experience that users expect. Music streaming platforms are here to stay unless a more convenient way of delivering music to users is devised.
@@sioncamara7 Your statement contradicts itself because you already said that these people are theoretically talented coders and passionate about music, but said doing this work would be for no personal gain. But that is the gain. That's the personal gain - they'll be improving the field of music and media in general.
Thankyou for being a broken record! I'm also a broken record about this and use what I would spend on a Spotify subscription every year to purchase on bandcamp and keep a personal offline digital library! I actually found a nice compromise to the 'i don't agree with Spotify but recognise on several fronts I need to be there' I upload my singles to streaming services and only have the rest of the release available on bandcamp
Nobody ever mentions Deezer. A streaming service with a bigger library, better audio quality, cheaper subscriptions, available in more countries and apparently paying artists almost 40% more than Spotify. I had it for more than a decade, simply because it was the first streaming service I heard of, I believe was launched before spotify, and always seemed better in comparison. One of life's mysteries.
I’m using Bandcamp, but that’s also my fear. They’ll cater to artists for now, until they get enough customers, then they’ll roll out the blitzscaling. Also… whatever happened to Moog? Must have just got beaten out by Spotify. Edit: I meant MOG. Turns out they shut down in 2014.
I think most hardcore fans of any band will support them by buying their albums and merch not mentioning going to their concerts. Spotify to me are a way to listen to music I would never listen to otherwise and their algorithm have introduced me to bands that now are some of my favorites.
worst part of this to me, is that outside bandcamp, spotify is still my biggest source of income from my music, and its more constant than bandcamp which spikes around album releases and then dies down. might be a marketing problem on my side, but still.
@@Ufkatuale i don't have much momentum on youtube personally, my work schedule and especially release schedule doesn't lend itself to the algorithm very well. heck i'm not even monetized due to low subs and views.
@@HamzaKhan-vd5vc If you read the first three words of my OG comment, then you should realize that I am indeed "speaking for" myself. Funnily, though, you attempt to speak for me immediately after deriding the idea of trying to speak for another. Only a very small percentage of musicians I listen to are millionaires, but even if they were that wouldn't change my preference for them getting money instead of mostly just Spotify.
@@Dschano Not a bad thought. The main reasons I'd like to see Spotify do this are simplicity for me, and also encouraging more musicians to put their music somewhere I have easy access. Spotify determines how much of my current sub goes to a specific artist based on my listening history (more or less). I like that more than trying to deliberately manage donations. Especially tricky when listening to many different artists. But again, it is a solid suggestion.
1:22 - This is probably stock footage, but for anyone who does this, please use calculated columns instead! The syntax for this in Google Sheets is =ARRAYFORMULA(formulahere), and in Microsoft Excel it's =functionname(tablename[@[columnname]:[columnname]]). Examples in Sheets: =ARRAYFORMULA(A$A:A+B$B:B), and for Excel: =SUM(Table1[@[A]:[B]]). You can also use IF-statements to only compute columns where one or more of the input values are present. This is really important for large, non-static spreadsheets where new information is frequently added.
I am an economist (and a bedroom musician), and I can only applaude your analysis of the business model. I am supporting artists on bandcamp, and have never had a spotify subscription.
These investigative video essays of yours are amazing! Totally agree with your take on this topic as well with your previous videos on AI art, etc. can’t wait for more videos from you 🙏 subscribed! 💜
My personal experience is I've never listen to so much music since streaming was a thing, and it's my main way of discovering new music, sifting through new music, old music as well, and deciding what I like enough to physically buy. I've never wasted a dime buying an album just to find out I'm indifferent about it or don't care for it. I guess the message here is the consumers so you're not supporting your artist of choice by listening to them on Spotify, you're supporting them by buying their album we're sending them money directly to continue their efforts.
*Nothing makes me want to cry more than finding an artist on Spotify who's music I find amazing and see that they only have like 10 monthly listeners.*
Yeah, I’ve found bands like that before. To be fair, not many people listen to heavier metal sub genres but seeing a band that’s so good only have 15 monthly listeners or followers makes me sad.
Feels like everybody forgot about youtubes existence. That was truly the first form of streaming. And no, before spotify you didnt listen to albums you listened to music on ytb
I tend to find more interesting bands on RUclips music. Spotify only gives bands that have a similar sound. Sometimes I want something new to add to my playlists. I don’t want everything to blend into one. I want to hear a song start and to get excited because it’s drastically different from the last one but still fits in. Spotify doesn’t do that. My own playlists of albums I have bought do, RUclips music does that sometimes as well.
Well, I grew up listening to albums and radio. Then I moved on to CDs to replace all my old scratched records. Now most of my listening is either from youtube or the digital copies of CDs or digital downloads on my computer.
Honestly I was shocked, been using Spotify for a while but I listened to some dj sets on RUclips and within a few hours I'm finding incredibly talented artists with only a few hundred subscribers. Honestly I think that being a video platform RUclips kinda forces you to engage a little more as a viewer rather than just putting on a Spotify mix and never really looking into the artists
About the limited album thing, I recently encountered something similar. We had an exclusive vinyl track on our EP and our label asked us not to write it anywhere, because then Spotify would be mad and not give us the banner on new music Friday. So we kept low and got the banner, they don’t like exclusives on other platforms of limited editions etc. Anything relating to diminishing their library is strictly not allowed, if you want Spotify promotion:(
Maybe because being 50+, but I still prefer to buy music instead of streaming. Used to be mostly cd's, now bandcamp or via (what I presume to be) decent sellers. Also listen to Internet radio and YT music. Besides enjoying to support artists by buying music there's another aspect very important to me: I'm more aware of the music. I will read or listen to reviews, find out about the musicians etc. Therefor it's more of an experience. I'm much more aware of what I buy than what I stream. Also, I prefer albums to songs..
The main source of income for musicians is performing in public. Spotify acts as a promotional platform. I don't know how stable the income was from physical media (discs, cassettes) before streaming, but it seems that it was even more difficult to get on the store shelf for the broad audiences. I don't believe strimming platforms like Spotify will fall in any close time cause big labels hold the majority of pre-streaming era music. People would like to listen to their favorite old stuff and will stay where the old stuff is located. So smaller musitians will be forced to stay close.
I agree with your thinking, or I should say there's where the money should be. Before I started streaming, I would normally find about 5-10 new artists a year that I genuinely enjoyed and would want to hear more of. I started spotify last year and I probably follow 30-40 new artists that I've never heard before (that none of my friends have heard about either). That exposure alone must be worth something other than cash in the pocket.
How stable was it before? We musicians used to be able to live off of it without touring, well after doing a tour to promote it all over the country/all over the world. Think about someone who is getting close to retirement age, has kids or coming grandkids, some medical issues may make touring difficult especially for long tours. We can't survive off of having to play/tour ALL the time just to make a living (not getting rich from it). Reasons like this is why I have ventured into real estate. I'd like to have a family someday and actually be able to afford to support my family. I still play for a living at the moment but almost 30 years of load and unload, sleeping on a bus when touring, horrible diet when touring be a use you're never near decent food when on the road most of the time. It wears on your body. That's not sustainable either...
The difference is that with physical media, your income does not depend on usage but on ownership. You can buy a record and listen to it once, or you can listen to it to the point it is physically worn, the artist got a fixed amount and the artist got it instantly instead of over an undefined period of time (= eternity). If you do the calculations, you will find that in any case, the physical record earns the artist more. Even if you do a scenario where streaming revenue and physical revenue are exactly the same amount, you want to get it in a big bulk (=physical) instead of spread out over many years. Large sums upfront can be invested, if I only get 100 dollars per month, then it is difficult for me as an artist to invest it into creating a new record, doing promotion, upfront cost of touring, etc. If I get 10.000 at once because of sales, I can get higher interest on it, invest it in creating more music, and I don't have to wait 10 years of active listening from my audience to get it. Of course public performing earns you more money because it is an opportunity to sell merchandise (which has the highest profit margin), that's how dire the streaming platforms pay out. But touring is really expensive, often not really profitable, and high risk as you have all your cost up front.
With live music, I feel like those artists and labels who don't know any better would probably go with LN/TM for venues, promotion, and ticket sales. Which is another big problem. TM: Ticketmaster LN: LiveNation
The problem here is with labels, Spotify doesn’t make any money, and the other major services are all subsidized by the tech giants other business lines. Personally I use Spotify a lot, and it has led me to purchase traditional media and attend more concerts. Recently I found the album Awe by An Abstract Illusion, something that was quite outside what I normally listen to but I’m glad it showed up on a random playlist. Ended up purchasing the record through band camp for $60 on the pay as you think it’s worth it model. I think the sad reality is that it’s not just streaming that is unsustainable to artists, but the music industry in general is broken.
For some artists, the lack of royalty payments could also be viewed as "marketing fees." Not saying every artist gets the same exposure on Spotify, but unless we're going to completely revert back to brick and mortar record stores where someone is making a recommendation for new music and letting me put the album on for a trial run, Spotify DOES do a good job of getting new content to listeners. I've discovered many, many artists through Spotify that I have supported monetarily on tours, merch, and the occasional album purchase. I don't look back with even a hint of nostalgia at maintaining a record collection. Spotify's model may be terribly lopsided (who's surprised by that, though?) but it does accomplish something in the mainstream audience.
How are you profiting off of that „marketing fee“ if the consumer doesnt have any reason to spend additional money in the first place? Mostly because she already has access to your back catalogue and thinks you, as the artist, already get money for every single stream from spotify, anyway.
@@hoozn Because it's not about streaming. From what I have gathered, streaming makes up less than a quarter of revenue for music artists. Shows make up half. If Spotify (or any other streaming service) gives me access to discover an artist that's new to me, I'm going to be looking to attend a show. Thus putting more money in their pocket than if I just bought an album. I realize this viewpoint isn't applicable for every artist, especially in some genres of heavily produced music. But where artists 50 years toured to promote their albums, artists these create albums to promote their tours. The money has shifted. I just don't accept that offering music on a streaming service is "bad for business" when so many artists are capitalizing from it. Doesn't mean Spotify is the answer or best platform, but if this is approached as getting your name out instead of "lost revenue" I think there's a positive side to this.
look @@MileHighGrowler I get your point and I know those stats regarding revenue distribution. but the thing is, that this only tells half of the story: the revenue share from concerts is comparatively big, not because streaming is such a great marketing tool that results in a high demand for tours and, but simply because artists earn comparatively little from streams. this was even mentioned in the video: literally a handful of sales on bandcamp (300 if you assume a price of around 10 bucks for the album) accounted for the same revenue as years of streaming several other albums did. so of course artists depend on tours, since streaming wont pay any bills. and this is where the crucial part comes in: one of the most prominent arguments for streaming in this video's comment section is "I would never be able to afford buying all those tracks"... so why should those people spend even more money on concerts? if anything, there now is even more competition for smaller acts, since it is not just you, whos getting exposure, but so is the band that played the local pub the night before. this means the audience has to think about where to spend their money, and usually it is the event that offers the biggest bang for the buck, i.e. taylordrakeadelemarooncoldplay with fireworks and 2+ hours of showmanship in front of a gazillion people...
@@hoozn I guess. I dunno. I haven't been to a venue that holds more than a few hundred people in over a decade. I follow the small acts and support them live (because I love the energy of live music). If streaming services ceased to exist, people would just go back to pirating where there's no money to share (I don't condone it, just saying that's a reality and why P2P was such a big thing before streaming and hasn't really been since). I guess the bigger question then is why are people in music. Is it for the art, the entertainment or the money? We all make sacrifices with our jobs and can't have it all. I choose to look for the positives in any scenario, that's all. And I think there are positives like discovering bands that I would not have found otherwise, who in turn I have financially supported by going to their shows and buying merch.
@@MileHighGrowler you soud like someone who is happy to spend time and money on music, regardless of streaming services, because, as you said, you love the energy of live performances and live music as a whole. that, however, is most likely not a consequence of using streaming services. they serve a completely different purpose, i.e. background entertainment when and where you, the listener, want it. but the existence of a streaming service per se doesnt magically turn you into a concert-goer (just like discovering cooking shows on netflix doesnt make you spent your money in restaurants, if you werent already willing to do so). therefore, your initial argument ("marketing fees" for people "discovering" your music) falls flat, because the sheer size of the userbase (and thus the number of people going to your concerts or buying records & merch) is purely fictional. moreover, it does not translate into revenue: if anything, "home-listeners" are going to spend even less, because there is no need to buy records anymore. and concerts are still a very local thing: it may be nice to discover some undergorund musicians from all over the world, but unless they are coming to your town/area (which costs them travel expenses on top), you probably wont go to one of their concerts, ever... and the bands that are playing in your area? lets be honest: you dont need a streaming service to "discover" bands that play the venue around the corner. on a sidenote: would piracy realy be that bad? apparently, smaller bands dont really lose much in terms of revenue anyway (as mentioned in the video), and at the same time, as a "pirate" you have to start digging again and cannot rely on algorithms and a single play button.
I think that analyzing Spotify only from a monetary perspective is the biggest flaw in this analysis, musicians get paid far less on youtube and yet I can find all if not more music on youtube than I can find on spotify. A more extreme example is tiktok -- you get paid for the amount of videos that use your music, not the amount of streams a video has, so you could make less than a cent if a video with 10 million views uses your music. The reason for all of this is a lot of artists want to be popular first, and make money second. It becomes a slippery slope, no matter how low the payout is, because it's like trying to win the lottery every time you drop a song. It doesn't matter if you have to get 2 million streams to win 10k or it's 10 million streams to get that same money. Most people wouldn't stop buying powerball tickets if the odds of a jackpot decreased from 1 in 292,201,338 to 1 in 400,000,000. People aren't always rational economic actors, and our minds aren't built to comprehend numbers of that size. Spotify is going to continue pretty much robbing musicians for years, and 99% musicians are going to keep uploading their music to it because it's not a rational economic decision to be a musical artist. BTW I'm not saying it's not doable to make a living off of music, either, but it's REALLY hard to be truly financially secure as a musician, and it's really easy to rationalize staying on spotify, youtube, and tiktok, in case it one day comes in clutch to meet next month's rent on time.
Man, I had this exact feeling the other day when they emailed me to say "we are increasing our pricing...", at that moment I thought, there is no way Spotify is gonna last! I seriously miss the p2p days of discovering new music from friends and online communities. Now we all just wait for an algorithm to tell us we might like something 🙄
I think i do really like the centralized model. i dont want to have to switch apps or websites if i want to listen to a song thats not on the same platform I would especially hate having to look up where a song is even available for streaming. On top of that i love having a single "songs i like" playlist that i can always put on shuffle (tho spotify's "random" algorithm keeps repeating the same stuff over and over)
Switching apps and websites is what the centralized model offers. The video might have not explained it in the best way, centralization mainly refers to “centralized control” not “centralized content”. The decentralized model means everyone agrees to to a set of rules and based on these rules they openly share content, no one centralizes arbitrary control over what is accessible. That means with a single app you can access everything that was ever shared, you just need an app that’s compliant with the defined rules. With the centralized model, if an artist signs some exclusivity deal with a business, you won’t get their content unless you sign up with that specific business. This doesn’t happen as much with music but it’s exactly what happens with Netflix, Disney+, etc, if you want access to everything you must have multiple subscriptions and use multiple apps. Everyone is centralizing their content inside their bubbles because they hold total control over said content.
@@rockerbacon Ah, thanks for the explanation... but its sorta hard to imagine anything decentralized that is accessible by different apps somebody has to host the files and that host would need either a "public" way to further distribute it to a bunch of different apps that is universal for hosts so its easier to access or it would again end up with different apps only being abled to play music from certain hosts until theres either one mega app where hosts apply or one mega host where apps apply which would only mean that hosting and playing get split also what would be the monetary system of decentralized music? buy from different hosts and you get them all to play on your fav app? kinda gets expensive quickly, main reason why i dont purchase music, im poor af but i can handle 10 bucks a month for everything spotify has to offer, even tho it fucks over creators (how does it compare to youtube music?)
@@chriser5146 The thing you are missing is that files can be transferred over the internet. If artists/platforms sold mp3s instead of subscriptions, then it doesn't matter what app you use to listen to your music. An mp3 is an mp3, and you can listen to it on almost anything anywhere. It's the same with mp4s for video.
@@ladyravendale1 But then I have to deal with mp3s. Been there, carried my trusted Sandisk Sansa with me, even put mp3s on my phone manually. It was enough of a pain that I didn't listen to much music, basically only my favorite playlist because it didn't change much. Then streaming services allowed me to easilly discover new music, and skip all the hurdle of managing files on my own.
@@Malthan This has also talked about in the comments, but when using streaming services, they control all the things. So what if your favorite artist decides that they don’t want to use that platform anymore, or what if the streaming service and record label get into a dispute? That content is gone from your playlists, they often don’t even tell you what was removed, and all you can do is cry or get a different subscription service that still has that artist. If you have the mp3 and any troubles happen, it doesn’t matter, because they can’t reach into your files and delete the music. This was also a point in the video, you can pay for the convenience, but as we are seeing now, the issues with music as a subscription are becoming apparent, like uncertainty if the content you enjoy will still be accessible tomorrow.
Great video and I agree with almost everything but I see one problem: Many people (including me as a student) don't have the money to support artist in a better way but still like to enjoy music. The amount of music I listen to on a barely basis couldn't barely be covered by buying 2 albums a month which is roughly what my current Apple Music subscription equates to. Would love to hear your take on this. Edit: Wow, thanks for all the insightful replies! To address a few things: I obviously see the point of appreciating music more by buying less of it but on the other hand I'd miss out on so much good music. Also I listen to so many different genres and artists on a regular basis that it'd be close to impossible for me to choose a few specific albums. Regarding piracy, I don't really see why it's better than using a streaming service. Yes, I do support a business that's inherently bad for the artist but at least they get a tiny bit of money from me. Also pirating is a lot of work compared to using a well developed music streaming app when it comes to actually curating a properly organized library of music. Lastly I don't think that radio stations are comparable to any of this at all because you literally can't choose what to listen to and you can't do it offline properly. So I think my final verdict is that we need streaming but in a different way. The subscriptions can be more expensive and it could be decentralized. That way the maintenance cost could sink and the artists will hopefully get paid a little better while people start to appreciate the music more because they pay a little more for it. I think we'll just have to see what the future brings.
There're still ways to enjoy music via internet radio etc. And you might find that in the end you get more out of those 24 yearly albums than access to everything, at all times.
You've been spoilt, but it's at the sacrifice of the artist's fair payment. Before streaming and mp3 piracy, we all got by not just fine, but had a really great time with music. We weren't supposed to be given everything for next to nothing, because it takes years of hard work to create things. That's the balance in economy. These stupid Communists or whoever is behind this have messed everything up.
What el-bo said but also, libraries are a thing and some of them have music. Lots of artists put their stuff up on YT and other places for free. And if you do end up pirating stuff, pay it forward when you're no longer a poor student.
back 30 years ago, when I was a "struggling poor student", I would buy 1 new album every 3 months, and just play the shit out of it, and the prior albums I had purchased. I would also be rather selective about what I purchased. Just because you have gotten used to free-lunch, does not mean the lunch is sustainable, or healthy, or fair.
My first experience with Spotify was in 2009, it worked for like maybe an hour then my account was disabled for no given reason. But RUclips is much better for music anyways (at least for my specific needs), especially since a lot of unreleased music is available on RUclips.
RUclips is merely okay for music. RUclips Music is not nearly as good as Spotify as a total experience. The Spotify app is far better in terms of UI. Spotify has better sound quality. Spotify has better music discovery and the 'algorithm' that suggests music is much more finely tuned. Spotify is worth every penny it costs for a monthly sub and then some.
@@VincentsVideoVisions But doesn't it seem to good to be true? When you have an app dedicated to music distribution digitally and it has literally every song you could possibly imagine for a cheap monthly fee? like the video said, it's a tech stock dependent on infinite growth and venture capitol. All these companies that run on 0 profits will have their day of reckoning eventually.
@@TimothyCHenderson for sure, but until that day comes im going to enjoy it. Spotify has been around several years by now... I don't see them going away any time soon.
I prefer the youtube music suggestions, i found way more bands abd new styles, on spotify it feels like im listening to the same songs allnthe time. (I listen like 8h a day)
@@df71091 what you get out of Spotify is relative to what you put into it. Artists you follow, tracks you listen to, playlists you make, playlists you interact with, etc. Once you've heavily interacted with spotify for at least 3 or 4 months it starts to really dial in your tastes and that's when the magic happens.
I've been collecting a database of my music library ever since I got Spotify because I always said "Spotify is useful and all now, but eventually it will close down, then what will you do?" Spotify keeps getting worse for everyone it seems and they don't care. Maybe share holders will change their mind but let's be honest. They won't
I mean you can always download CD quality music from Spotify with a HiFi account. That said unless something goes really wrong, music will always be available on the internet.
I'll make do, I guess. There's a pile of records somewhere at my parent's house, I lost all my CDs in the car, nothing is forever, except humans will always make music.
@@redcollard3586 removing what content? I've been using spotify since 2016 and I make at least 1 playlist a month and out of all of those playlists there's maybe 2 dozen tracks at most that are no longer available,and even if they do remove content there's SO MUCH more to explore. And to be fair the algorithm is actually shockingly good at recommending music even if you have very niche/underground taste. What do you mean by public playlists being a scam?
I love your videos on this subject Benn! I still feel taking down Spotify is a UX problem, it's the convenience factor, everything synced across multiple devices, but I'd happily pay more for it. I'll pay more, I just want to retain that convenience. If streaming an artist involved paying track by track automatically, or being on some plan that gives you X amount of streams of things you don't own, and if you run out you either buy more streams or you buy the album or whatever then I'd be into it. But I don't want to go back to managing my own music library, and I actually like the algorhitms as maybe because I have niche music taste it just does a great job finding stuff for me, often things I've never heard about. I have around 1000 playlists saved on Spotify over the years using it, I really love Spotify but not for what it does to artists, and I'd happily leave if there was a good alternative
If people leaving piracy behind is proof of anything it is that people will pay for convenience! And I think a mass exodus of artists to a more fair service, that maybe is a bit more expensive but also "fair trade" I think it could be a hit, it's just about convenience
I would do the same. I think a lot of people would. Someone above had the same idea I had, that I would gladly pay more for as well. The company providing the service takes a portion off the top then divides the remaining money among the artists you listened to.
@@kerbolax Remember what Gabe Newell said on why he started Steam. "Piracy isn't a price issue. It's a convenience issue". Why Spotify started was to make it easier for pirates to get music legally and in a convenient manner. Similar to Steam on getting all your video games in one place.
Would you mind sharing were you buy flac? Leaving spptify is something I've been wanting to do for a while now, but I haven't found a place were I could buy music in a digital format to replace it
@@MarcosLand There are online shops and sometimes the artist or label offer download from their own websites. Some require a computer (not mobile device) for download. Bandcamp is great for indie and self published artists. Bandcamp also offers unlimited streaming and downloads (WAV/FLAC/MP3) for any music you buy through their platform.
@@famemosterrrrr Look, I don't disagree and know where you're coming from. Though as an aspiring artist myself, I understand the struggle of getting by while doing what you love, especially anything art-related. So I'd rather sacrifice some comfort and support those whose music I love. It's a personal choice for everyone.
What's wrong with using music services to recommend music? It was phrased with a subtext like its somehow an impure way of finding music. What's the "purer" way of finding new music supposed to be? Algorithmic music recommendation is far older than Spotify, and the current way of doing on demand streaming.
I think many independent artists at this point are just using Spotify for advertising purposes. They have to make money elsewhere (concerts, merch, etc.) Not signing any contracts with a record company is the first step to becoming profitable.
I got the same thing out of watching this video as I got out of watching Everything Everywhere All At Once --- yes, what you think you know falls apart when you scratch at it, but letting it fall apart is the way forward. Very solid work! Thanks for doing this!
incredible video. no shaming, no overly emotional takes, just well articulated and interesting. important to hear for me, as someone who has overall enjoyed the experience as a consumer on spotify
Just found your page. Subbed, liked, and writing this to motivate that algorithm. Really interesting bit on the "hum" and curious if you are going to be doing a follow up piece in regards to Ian (of NYT's prominence) running a scam? What a dirtbag, but nice of you to offer him the opportunity to do the right thing. Your verbal judo is on point. Well done!
The fact that Navidrome exists, a way to have your own Spotify-like app out of your own files running on any servers, means that decentralized music streaming is completely achievable. This being said, having to know Tech and how to set up servers as a musician is not exactly the skills that go hand-in-hand the most, but it gives me hope that one could look into ways of offering this sort of "private streaming servers". Like something a label or collective could manage or something.
Current jobs of a musician in 2023: - Musician - Producer - Mix & Master - Promoter - Videographer - Video editor - Marketing agent - Manager I mean at this point we aren't changing much by adding Computer Tech in the same pile 😭
@@FlipOfficial There is a reason labels take such a huge piece of their artists' sales. They do all of the non-musician things (..or in some cases they do even the musician part)
@@nitroanilinmusic I would completely agree with you if that were the case most of the time but sadly it’s not. We are not longer in an era like it was in the 90's or 2000's where, if you are hot enough, they will write, distribute and do basically everything. All you have to do is just sit there and look pretty. These days while they do take care of artists in terms of arranging marketing, promotions, gigs, photo shoots etc. most of the times they will ask of the artists to create some kind of a viral boom on the internet (now days mostly TikTok) before they even do any of that. So all of that has to come from the artist. You do have people like, The Weeknd, Justing Bieber, Ariana Grande etc. that get taken care of by the labels, but that's your top 1%. At that point, please get paid for the work that you do to continue beating a dead horse until it stops spitting out money, you earned it as a label. But then you also have people like Charlie Puth (regardless of opinion for his music) that has to make tiktoks to promote his music, John Legend a well established artist is being pushed by his label to go on tiktok and instagram to make videos so he doesn't get left behind. These were just at the top of my head I'm sure there are plenty more out there. Unsigned artists are the ones that struggle the most and get punished the most by streaming services and it's up to the sole individual (or everyone in the band) to pick up the slack and be all of the things I've mentioned before. k. I bummed myself out by typing this. gonna grab a glass of whiskey now. 🫠
@@FlipOfficial Justin Bieber and The Weeknd only got picked up because they were already going viral on RUclips. Ariana Grande's rich parents helped get her a Broadway gig when she was 15 and was then on Victorious/Sam&Cat which led to her eventual signing when - you guessed it - label executives saw videos of her singing covers on RUclips. Gotta be famous to get famous apparently.
You probably do not care, Benn, but I buy my music. In the old days, it was cassettes, then CDs, then mp3s. I still buy mp3s. It is kind of a hassle to manage that mp3 library, but I never jumped on the music streaming bandwagon. I want to build a music collection, not rent one.
Me too. Not always, but I've always had a fear in the back of my head that Spotify will one day be gone and that I don't actually own that music. I usually buy vinyl but also buy a lot of mp3s, it feels good to know that it's something I actually own and won't be gone tomorrow when some f'd up business sinks
I ended up building my own mp3 streamer because none that I could find would just look at a directory, find MP3 files, read the ID3 tags, and serve them. This sort of software was all the rage in 1998. Not so much today.
That is still subscribing to a paradigm where “music” is a scarce asset that you can own. Fair enough if you enjoy the collection aspects of that, but this is not what we will revert to if streaming services shut down. It will be back to piracy. The marginal cost of a copy of a song is essentially 0. Any attempt at getting away from that by making it artificially scarce via regulation, NFT-bullshit or otherwise is doomed to fail. The cost of a Spotify subscription is pretty much exactly the maximum that most people are prepared to pay for access to unlimited copies of every single song in the world. IMO artists need to find a way of getting paid for their work (which is immensely valuable) as opposed to for copies of their music (which are essentially valueless and are facilitated by services like Spotify anyways, leaving them with what little revenue there is to find here)
Holy crap, I had no idea you had an active RUclips channel, Benn! I've been in love with your music since 2008 and somehow never realized you're doing this. Well, time to binge-watch everything you have to say! Stay awesome, man
I wish I'd seen this when you first uploaded it Benn. Wow...First off, even as jaded as I've been about Spotify and the measly crumbs they decide to "bequeath" to us musicians, I was rather stunned by your earnings on Bandcamp vs. Spotify! You made more in 1 WEEK on Bandcamp than "3 f-ing YEARS" on Spotify? Jesus H...I don't really think outrageous is even close to describing how deeply wrong and corrupt that is. I already knew a bit about the clandestine corporo deals the majors were engaging in with them. However, my head and soul hurt. And I'm only halfway through the vid...Well, I'm back. I didn't know the term Blitzscaling but have certainly seen plenty examples of it. Well, you managed to tie everything the future for music could potentially be in a fairly nice bow. You are so correct, music will still be around even after these creator abusing streaming sites die. At this point, anything that puts even a small smile on my face is gold. Hopefully more musician friendly streaming sites with fair royalties will come to fruition. Thanks Benn for your well researched and thought provoking appraisal of Spotify.
Thank you for this video. I've been considering pulling my music from Spotify and starting a decentralized music server for my community for a while now, and it's just always great to see your perspective on the ""industry""
One thing I can say Spotify offers to listeners is a huge archive of vintage popular music in all genres. I don't think they will fail. They make it too convenient to find your favorite music from 30 years ago.
Yeah for the end users it will always be great in theory, but the point of the video is that it's too fragile, something as simple as a few thousand artists leaving or losing subscribers could make it collapse. The vid already showed that artists are getting less and less money, so it's not out of the question that eventually they'll just start leaving.
@@arnaldofernandez exactly, those bigger artists no longer make the majority of their money off of these things. the business model has switched to tours and merch with this raising vast awareness for their product, the old business model was long dead before Spotify but he seems not to realize that yet
@@SunglassesEmoji leave and go where? No big streaming service can pay well and no small streaming service can be as good as a big streaming service. Spotify might pay you less but there's no better alternative,
Thanks for saying this. People have been telling me to put my music on Spotify for years, but I just can’t fathom paying a service to host my music while I get nothing from it.
I think Spotify could be a useful tool to smaller music makers. Finding out where people are choosing to listen to your music today may be the info you need. If numbers are large enough that a list of cities or towns could create a profitable tour of those places. People like Taylor Swift who is popular everywhere does not need this from Spotify, but New Zealand's Bic Runga or Dave Dobbyn may find a selection of towns to play across the World.
This convinced me to finally drop streaming services all together. I switched over to Tidal from Spotify 2 ish years ago for a few reasons, MQA (a sham) & to better support musicians (a sham that I just learned about). Now on day 2 of listening to my existing digital library of ripped/physical CDs and I am realizing that it's not just a novelty; my listening feels more intentional, and I feel less reliant on a algorithm to feed me individual songs that I end up forgetting about after a couple of listens. Thanks Benn.
Yeah of course it feels more intentional when you have to go out of your way to hear the music you want lol. That's like thinking music is more special because you paid $20 for a CD at the store decades ago. Meanwhile you're the minority and everyone else just pays for streaming services for the convenience and doesn't care what the people they're listening to are making per stream.
@@dsrree enjoy the streaming services now, while you still can. It's only a matter of time before it starts looking more like the TV streaming landscape, which is to say, making piracy look like the better option with how severely limited the services have become. Everything, by everyone, all of the time for X dollars a month isn't sustainable.
@@dsrree AKA: a minority that is trying to pay artists based on their worth to them rather than giving those funds to a glorified start up running on VC dollars.
I bought one or two cassettes per month when I was in college (oh and we had Columbia House too!). The rest of the time was whatever played on FM radio, including my college's radio station. Artists just can't make the same money from airplay or online and must tour right now to make reasonable money. Another thing is we all want new, various and interesting music. I bought CDs and cassettes of the three or four bands I liked most - not from 100 bands crowding for attention on a spotify playlist feed. And when CDs came out, Cassettes were sold at yard sales for .50/each and artists made no money from that. There just isn't an appetite for 1000 new bands coming out per month across the nation who want to make money and a career making music. In the 1980s, they did it by playing at clubs every night 4-5 nights a week. There is no right answer other than get a marketable skill and work in an industry - and do music on the side until you have a solid loyal following and can tour. I remember working at Fannie Mae in DC in 1994 and one of the managers had long hair and played in a metal band but kept his hair "up" while working in the corporate office space. He could do both - a good paying skill and music. Are people today only going to "follow their dream" into the future or build their dream through good life choices? Sure you might have to work at a day-job and do music on the side. I just don't see that as a huge problem. But I know many are revolting against "working for capitalism" and want to do the arts. Arts is consumed by capitalists of the world who pay for tickets, merch and music. Arts serves those with the money who share their money with the artists. There are so many good artists on SoundCloud, BandCamp and more - and yet will hardly ever get air play or tour any moderate sized venues - some rely on being on the 5th stage of a festival playing to 70 people and selling 30 t-shirts a day at the fest. The old saying was the people who made the most money during the California Gold Rush were the shop owners selling picks, shovels and other gear to the "miners". This is the same today - Guitar Center sells you the picks/shovels and venues and ticket sellers take their hefty fees if you ever make it to the "big show". In between, it's a million guys and their DAW writing interesting stuff - oh yea, DAW software companies, plugin-makers and all the rest are also reaping their money from you as you try to get there. Arts - it's hard. And that's the journey. Enjoy it the best you can. What's wild to me is the radio stations in my college-town (Rochester NY) play the same artists and albums now - as they did in the 1980s. Bob Seager, AC/DC, Police, et al. Anyway - enough of me for now...
Hi, I've been recording a couple of songs but i have nothing out there yet. Would you suggest that i go full Bandcamp? Will people be able to still identify my songs with apps like Sharzam? How would you advise that i go about this as a fresh artist who's trying to take advantage of your experience?
The important thing to remember is that not all musicians have the same business model. The most financially successful artists generate most of the revenue from touring and live shows. For those artists, Spotify is a great partner because they can increase awareness, promote their shows and use Spotify data to understand where their fans are geographically to plan their tours. For the musicians who need to generate income from recorded music, that model was dead long before Spotify. I’m sorry you thought that was coming back but it wasn’t.
One thing is that I would like streaming services to have a buy it now button that allows you to buy a digital copy. Seems like a good model would be explore while somehow creating a permanent collection. People used to listen to the radio while go and buy the albums they loved.
the problem is that most apps that would let you buy the album wouldn't let you download an independent mp3 file, they would let you download it and listen to it offline but you'd still have to use their app to play it, so if their service went down then you'd still lose access to the music. the problem is if they let you download an mp3 file that isn't dependant on their app and can be used with any mp3 playback app, then you could also just upload that file online and everyone could download it and use it, so 1 person buys it and 1000 people pirate it off them
All I know is that when my old band finally decided to move onto Spotify our iTunes and Bandcamp sales utterly tanked, like, overnight. We ended up so frussturated we uploaded our entire catalogue onto Pirate Bay and told the punters to go nuts cos we where out.
Musicians also have to look out for their own livelihood *individually* Even if 100% of all musicians at ALL levels joined a 'union' (which is impossible), its only a pinky promise to follow suit. Many, many of them would immediately break that promise if they got a deal that only benefited them.
@@Dave102693 a SAG membership is likely mandatory for a working actor in LA, while a working musician in LA doesn't need to join any union -- thats the difference. Hope u understand now.
The limited release strategy I think is a great one; using streaming services as essentially advertisement platforms only. Certainly isn't what Spotify and friends would prefer, but for artists it's probably the best way to think about and use it; assuming that money is what you're after.
Seems to be working for Tom McDonald. Edit: I get that in hip hop there's a big element of fake it till you make it, self promotion is a big part, and rappers always talk a big game, so he could very well be exaggerating about his sales for all I know, but it does appear that he makes a living doing what he does and he's definitely independent, not "independent" as in signed to a smaller subsidiary of a major label. And he appears to thrive off being controversial and hated so there's that. Apparently you can make money by pissing people off.
Holy FUCK how I am listening to the most lucid economic analysis since the last Chomsky bomb on a music channel?!?!?!? This is blowing my mind, thanks for this video. As a producer, of course I agree with everything you say. As a consumer, I can't imagine life without Spotify any more. Nothing else provides the anywhere remotely near the same value to me. It's not perfect of course but having almost anything I need on demand is priceless. That's difficult to reconcile.
Every time there's someone on youtube saying that spotify will collapse, but it still there because there's no good enough alternative. I'm pretty sure I'll see another video of this sort next year, and spotify will still be there.
The only thing I would like to add, is that Spotify has its "Discover Weekly" playlist that I listen to every week and has introduced me to a bunch of my newest favorite bands. Not positive the functionality of the other site he mentioned, but I wonder if the reach of Spotify is worth more than the actual $$ made from the sale of your album.
After my debut album I had artists I admired 'perform' the credits of my album (sometimes turning the credits into their own songs), and then explain how unsustainable Spotify is and say a little PSA. It was near the start of the pandemic and easy to get a hold of people - a little Trojan horse to politely bite the hand that starves.
I like the idea of stream to own, which would work like buying credit for streaming. The artist sets the price on what they want for each song or album, and if you listen to it enough, you can listen or download it for free from that point on. Streaming might be set at $0.001 per second of music you listen to. That gives you around 2.7 hours of music for $10, if my quick maths is right. Point is the person you’re listening to gets the income from your plays, it doesn’t get split up and sent elsewhere. So if you listen to a whole album through a couple of times and the artist has set it the album as $20 to own, you can now stream it for free. Sure, it cost you $20 to own (or more/less depending on the artist), but over time you’re going to grow a collection of music that you keep going back to while you discover new music. Also be great to incorporate bar code scanning so you can listen to music you’ve already bought on cd if it’s on the platform.
There was a company that tried to do this, though I think it was more like each subsequent listen to a song the amount you payed to it went up. I'm not sure if it still exists.
Bandcamp already has something similar. You get x amount of free listens before you have to pay for the track or album and get unlimited downloads and streaming of whatever you've paid for.
sounds massively expensive most people inclusing myself don't pay for a per use basis as stuff can hike up fast gives me flashbacks of the days TEXTS AND CALLS costed
As a music lover, how I feel now compared to growing up in the 80s with radio and records is: I have way too much music accessible way too cheaply. My streaming library is forever growing with stuff I'll probably listen to once or twice or even never get around to listening to. More and more I see my Bandcamp library of purchased music as my actual "authentic" music collection. My tastes are way too obscure (drone and ambient) for streaming platforms to cater for, so 99% of my new music discovery is from dedicated blogs and Bandcamp. Thank God for Bandcamp (for now)...
I do like Bandcamp, but did think I heard the bell toll when Epic Games bought them. On the other hand, I appreciate the way Bandcamp can be used by artists to sell physical merchandise and media. Also providing visibility of upcoming live events and email subscription for new releases and messaging is interesting too. Though the latter can quickly get overwhelming.
Messaging and being overwhelmed is the problem. We need a model that favors rare but very important messages: new album, a show near you. The social media was built content flooding, which created content fatigue. I don't care what my favorite artist just ate or whom they "had a tremendous time with".
@@drrodopszin yes, it's like Facebook - it shows me eveything from cousin Fred (the one with posting diarrhoea) but won't show me nephew James' wedding pictures because James only posts when he's got something actually worth sharing. I won't mention the RUclips Shorts algorithm because it clearly wants to assassinate me! 😱
Basically like Spotify but without the record labels serving as middle men taking a massive cut of the earnings that should be going to the artists. And I think we'll get there one day. It's becoming easier and easier to publish and promote your own music or hire an independent contract to do it all the time. You really don't need a record label to be an artist these days.
Super interesting video Benn! I love music and finance so I'm LIVIN. I've seen my streaming income tank over the last few years even though my monthly streams continues to climb. I was hoping I'd be in a place to hire some help for the channel at this point, but I'm only going backwards.
Yo I just wanna say, you made me realize that I have been living my life taking what these tech companies have done as gospel. I embarrassed that I haven’t thought more critically to even think that streaming was the problem. I’ll be a regular visit here. Seems like you have super pure intentions man.
Man, someone needs to put you in charge of the next decade's music industry. Everything you say makes so much sense. Makes me hopeful to see what's coming next. The fact that it isn't bandcamp due to it being bought by Epic is a bit of a downer though.
but, the one who get to choose which live and which die is not the Musician or label, it's the listener. if the listener like to listen to infinite amount of songs on spotify, spotify will keep thriving, even if there was a platform that pay the Artists fairly, if there was no listener use and listen to it, it's as good as dead. tbh, Spotify is great for listener, it introduce you to a lot of unknown Artists that otherwise no one would even heard of, Spotify is great for letting people listen to new music without their consent outside of the mainstream radio or chart, and that was a very big deal. if nobody heard of you, it's impossible for you to create a meaningful fanbase or monetize your music in a meaningful way, for the musician, Spotify is an amazing marketing platform, not a platform for making money, you just use your spotify page as a leverage to make money in another way
You make a lot of great points but I must admit I am part of the problem. If Spotify where to fail aside from a few bands I truly enjoy I'm not gonna go buy new stuff. I spend $5/month and get Hulu with it. That's a hard deal to beat. I'd probably just start ripping mp3 files of RUclips again because that's cheaper. And the reality is a lot of other people would as well. I'm sure this is something you've thought about.
You don’t mention another reason to use a streaming service. The convenience of managing YOUR existing music on multiple devices seamlessly. I pay Apple Music because I grew tired of copying music files around across devices and having to manually backup my iTunes library. I’m not using it like Pandora where I get new works or matched artists. I’m just paying for it to free up my time not being a file admin.
But when you were being a file admin, you OWNED those files. Apple Music can suddenly take music down, start charging more, or just fail as a company and poof goes your "library".
I've never paid for AppleMusic and all my music library is synchronised on all my devices thru "Music", formerly iTune. (my 4 Macs, my iPhone(s) and even on my 2 old iPods)
@@FLH3official That is only for music acquired from Apple music. My library of CDs which I ripped into iTunes a decade ago can't be synced between devices the same way without a subscription.
@@LucMMailloux I still keep my iTunes local library synced with my account. So I only have to manage my PC library. I don't have to worry about moving my library to my phone and streaming TVs. Because I backup my iTunes library files, I’ll always have access to my music files.
@@lohphat gotcha. Fairly similar to what I do, then, though I update my devices from my PC library directly. Helps that the only device I do this with is a phone.
I tried finding great new indie artists and streaming their music videos for people to discover, but the streams got blocked and taken down. I tried compiling the music videos into a playlist for people to discover and it has 300 views in 6 months. We used to discover great new music through local indie radio stations. I know individuals do make an effort to find this great new music on their own, but the growth curves on genuinely amazing groups is awful. There needs to be a way for people on mass to find and support the talent. We're losing a whole generation right now.
I feel comfortable saying this without Spotify I'd go to piracy and it would probably be better for the artists. (To the extent that at least it's clear people are being screwed)
fantastic analysis, and loved the quick punchy pacing. i'll never get the image of musicians being ground up as a resource to pour into the fuel tanks of spotify out of my head now... the system does sound like an unsustainable form of resource extraction
Wow, thanks for this video. I am going to check out band camp. I remember how excited I was to go to the used cd store back in the day to try to find new punk bands I could get into, this'll be like that, but way easier :)
Nice vid! Think i love these social commentary and music industry essays more than the actual gear reviews. Sharing these insights gives us a lot more food for thought about what really matters to us (both individually and as a whole), and prompts us think how we can possibly change these insensitive, self-serving industries, or ourselves for the better.
The reason for the payment per stream going down is probably due to the number of paid users growing slower than the total users. Naturally the number of streams played in total goes up (because the *whole* userbase keeps growing), but the incoming money does not grow at similar pace.
As a music producer I have come to the conclusion that the music industry is not shaped by the music or their creators but rather by third party companies trying to profit off their work. being a artist is no longer how good your music sounds its all about your branding, Image and relevance which really makes things hard for those who just went into creating music as a passion I have spent 3 years making music and till now I still haven't found the formula to success as there are too many variables to tackle
musician as influencer primarily and maker of music secondarily used to be just for the big glamorous top tier artists. It's gotten even worse in the social media age where behaving like this is the only thing that gets you out there on IG, TikTok, etc. At least Spotify and RUclips will route people to you based on your music and not just creating controversy, selling your lifestyle, etc.
Really cogent, helpful, informative breakdown of the facts, your experiences, and the experience of too many others, as well as your thoughtful analysis articulating the problem. I sincerely appreciate the time and research you put into your videos, this one being no exception.
This shouldn't have to be said, and I wish it didn't, but PLEASE do NOT "told ya so" or send this video to people who have been laid off by Spotify this morning. They were promised a career with a functional business and are now devastated and possibly wondering how they'll pay rent next month.
You're just trying to nanny the internet, and that has never worked out for anyone ever. if you're trying to ward off personal future guilt by asking people not to "told ya so", then, that's a bit of a losing proposition. People clicked your video to reinforce their biases, they will then parade the corpse of Spotify around, as a personal victory, because this is just another tribe and that's what people do, because people are petty, impulsive and sheepish.
Besides, figuring out how to pay rent next month is pretty much the norm for most of Americans, so why should we have unique sympathies for former spotify employees? Spotify employees made more money than the average person will ever see, so why should the average poor-as-dirt person feel sympathy for them? Though, the opposite is also true. Spotify and its employees don't deserve unique ire, though they will get it and that's at least in part because of videos on RUclips which stoke and emblazon peoples negative predilections.. Most people are complete shit bags, and imploring them to lean on their better morals is a losing proposition.
benn you're a smart lad. you played a show w my boy aaron (bleep bloop) in atlanta some years back. im from new york and couldnt go but it looked legendary. much love dawg
Weren’t they responsible to some extent for stealing musicians? At some point people need to feel responsible for their company’s actions.
@@edouardmusic what do you mean by stealing musicians?
@@RealHomeRecording Spotify employees have been driving vans around the bohemian parts of US cities, offering exposure to buskers who are never seen again.
I'm going to be honest and say that I've discovered more new music I like through the Spotify algorithms than I ever did when I bought all my music on iTunes.
I feel like we can't have both ways when it comes to music. Great discovery with Spotify or very niche targetting with indie publishers and hope it gets found organically? Conundrum..
I've some friends who claim RUclips music has a much better algorithm
Without Streaming Services (spotify specifically) I never would have gotten into music atall let alone all the artist I found from it
@@Bryophytan but problem with RUclips music is that your recommendations from non-music are taking into account iirc.
Neither RUclips nor Spotify recommends music I like just songs I already listen to or something that's just meh
I wouldn't know half of my current favorite artists without Spotify.. i hear everything you're saying, but Spotify has literally been a godsend to me. I wish it was more profitable to the artists. My main way of supporting my favorite artists is just buying their tshirts. But I don't nearly make enough money to be buying everyone i listen to's album. Especially not their whole damn discography.
napster and tidal both pay more to artists. its probably still crap but at least you can easily do a little better
@@daltonbedore8396 Its pretty bad industry wide and as stated in the video the payment still falls even for tidal and the rest so its better for us to demand change for the whole industry. Also Spotify has one of, if not the, largest library of artists and songs so if you do leave there is a risk that your favourite artist isn't even there especially if they are more obsure.
Indeed. For the HiFi quality, I'd prefer Qobuz, but Spotify's recommendation engine is a game-changing feature.
Then you don’t make enough money to listen to their music lol
It is work which you are consuming for nothing in return
I realize you’re incentivized but it was never your only option
It is solely a reflection on you
And yeah, you’re in a big crowd, but you’re still a shitty person
I mean if it paid artists fairly you’d end up paying the same amount as if you bought their discography
When nearly 70% of Spotify’s revenue go to pay out record labels in music royalties, it’s hardly surprising to see Spotify to still struggle to turn profitable despite operating for 16+ years and has 10+billion euro in revenues. The record labels’ stranglehold over Spotify is the real reason why it will fail (if it does). Given the oligopolistic nature of the recording industry, Spotify is unlikely to be able to negotiate better royalty fees in the future, so its only hope is to make money in areas OUTSIDE of music streaming, ironically. This is why they’ve been aggressively pushing into podcasts over the last two years, since they believe they can make better money off of podcasts. I made a video explaining this in more detail, might be interesting to you.
Spotify understood that in order to launch they needed content. Hence the upfront payments to music rights holders to get content from major artists. Just as an individual user, Spotify corporate has to pay Sony et al, continuing royalties to maintain access to the music that users want to stream. This is the "logical side" to blitzscaling, if there is one. If there is an exit strategy to escaping the mob bosses of the music industry, it would be to negotiate with smaller artists, not signed to labels, and PROMOTING them. This is as easy as creating algorithms to perform the A&R function that record labels used to have, but abandoned years ago. In Silicon Valley terms this is known as "cutting off the oxygen" to competitors. Instead Spotify and others are doubling down on the strategy of promoting top streaming artists, which are tied to major labels. This at the expense of decreasing payments to up and coming artists. So yeah, Ben is right, streaming and Spotify is built to fail, and when the
music stops and Spotify folds, the $100's you spent for years of subscriptions go poof! You have nothing. Going back to buying CD's is starting to make more sense to me.
The record labels are the real problem. I feel like if they weren't involved it would solve atleast 90% of the problems
@@frankgeick3641But how many people are even there that are indie artist’s loyal fans? Compare that to number of people listening to your Drakes and Weeknds of the industry, it’s literally no comparison.
Artists aren’t losing anything by putting their music on Spotify, it’s a way to get better reach that’s all, why would i stop putting my music out to be available to a larger audience?
The apparent snowball effect mentioned is only wishful thinking, in reality it is more like an ant clawing at an elephant’s feet.
So why doesn't Spotify make it easier for independent musicians to upload music to their platform? Why doesn't Spotify make playlisting and advertising more transparent. In fact, they do the opposite because they are just as bad as major labels.
It'll always be license holders, labels, publishers that are going to be the heart of all problems in the creative business. You got some nice ones actually acting in the signees interests, but let's face it, it's a cesspool of greedy goblins trying to completely bend over their own customers - while expertly diverting attention to all the entities trying to make that idiotic status quo work. Which is where YT and streaming and all those platforms are, still, like anyone could battle the interests of these billions-USD industries and survive.
People complain about Netflix and streaming services removing shows from their catalog. Guess what. stupid owners of even stupider IPs are the reason for fractured markets. People making insane amounts of money off of long dead people, casts, intellectual property... it's a huge scam and there are obvious solutions to this, but it's not like the right people care enough about it quite yet.
Spotify is obviously not perfect, like no service ever will be... but they're also not really in a position to negotiate those terms, not even close.
As a finance major I approve of more investigative content on the business practices of labels and streaming services.
You really want Benn to find a horse's head in his bed, don't you? 😋
go to it, young man
And even the banks themselves. Especially with impending inflation.
Spoiler: They're all criminals.
Actually contribute to society. Finance wonks destroyed America.
I switched to bandcamp when I realized the importance of owning your content ("What if the artist or, worse, the platform decides to pull this media?") and that most of my favorite artists were pretty indie so I figured that buying a single album probably gave them more money than Spotify ever would from my listening despite the fact that I was paying just as much for Spotify very month.
true but i have lots of artists where i only want a few tracks
That's true, but the subscription system is much more convenient, it allows you to easily listen to anything with no limits and to make playlists. Also, me personally, if it weren't for Spotify i would've become a master pirate because I wouldn't be able to afford to buy all the albums that i usually listen to.
I'm not saying there isn't a better system, especially in terms of supporting the creators, but i would rather pay 30€ to a music streaming subscription service than have to spend on individual tracks and albums.
Epic bought Bandcamp to feed its next musical AI, how does this make you feel ?
@@MrChoklad i'm not sure what you really listen, but i've paid little to nothing for tracks/albums i've liked. Some niche artists allow you to choose amount you want to pay for that track. I'm not rich, to be honest - i'm poor if you can compare me to others. But when there was a track that i could buy on bandcamp and support that creator, i would come up with 1$ or 1.50$ for each song. I know it's not much, but i appreciate that i can pay at least "something", and got pirating it, i also like that bandcamp allows you to download high quality music in .flac or other format. I don't have any headphones or soundcard that can make the difference noticeable but it looks cool :P
Here's an idea. Streaming technology is such that anyone can actually set up a streaming platform especially of its audio only. What if a platform was set up that was specifically for independent artists, and it had no venture capital involved, and it took only a small fixed percentage of revenue to pay cover it's costs. It could be a non profit, with using open source technology, so it could probably avoid taxes. It could provide all of the functionality of Spotify, but being open source people could contribute code to do things like alternative shuffle algorithms, and new features could be outsourced to anyone who just wants to make it a better platform. It could be scalable, it could be able to start small and gather steam. It could get donations from people who want to see it succeed, rather than investors looking for a profit. It would be able to employ a team, whilst providing value to the artists and the fans, because it cuts out the investor class entirely. I see literally no reason why this couldn't work.
I mostly agree - I have said for a long time that Spotify will fail unless they manage to change their deals with the music industry so more money goes back to artists and the labels are either excluded or at least paid a lot less. I don't think the problem is with streaming. The real issue is the middle men. The labels have made a lot of money for a long time and are not willing to go away.. so we need to force them to go away.
BTW - I buy albums, but it's getting increasingly hard to find ways to buy albums in MP3-format.
The labels are the only problem here. They take a large share of revenue while providing almost nothing in return. Publishing music is so much easier and cheaper than before so that should be reflected iv the revenue share.
@@k0zzu21 Agree, labels are the problem and it's good that Spotify is giving indie artist a way to promote their music
The labels own a large percentage of Spotify
@Mave if you side with Spotify over the label, that is still no improvement for the musician
@@burgermind802 true, but they can provide you an audience and you could do the promo
After 3 years on Spotify I have made a grand total of $1.82. I don’t really promote my music because it is something I do solely because it makes me happy so I am not really concerned about the money but a little extra dough would be nice😅
Thank you for the very informative video!
What did you use the money on?
@@charlespolanco7427 I feel like this is a Cards Against Humanity question so the white card I want to play is “bitcoin”. Anyone got any better cards?
Your music is worth nothing. You are lucky to get that.
@kwimms
Thats entirely to rude for a harmless comment. Please never interact with people sharing their interests online ever again
i mean how much was it streamed
I've always thought what could ultimately doom Spotify is if major record labels each created their own unique streaming services, and took their music off of Spotify and put it behind their own paywall much in the way that Paramount took Star Trek and Disney took Marvel from Netflix, for example. It is not hard to picture that happening at all.
The issue is that they'd have to do it at close to the same time. Otherwise the streaming service will just die, as people still get most of their stuff from Spotify.
Thats what snoop dogg is trying to do with Death Row Records
They tried with tidal but failed
yeah thats not gonna work, no one is gonna pay for multiple music services we just gonna pirate music again
I beg to differ.
"drink whiskey until you fall asleep laughing maniacally at how unfair the world is"
So...business as usual then I suppose. Got it.
I scrolled down to type this ❤
A lot of your recent videos orbit around frustration and resentment of a loser. I mean you tap into very fertile but toxic ground. Just saying
I do this regardless of business.
🫡
This ain't my first rodeo.
As a minor label releasing solely through Bandcamp, we stopped taking a label share of our artists releases back in 2018 because BC label fee’s aren’t that steep and the revenue is so dire for artists that it no longer felt right skimming any more money off the top.
We release label samplers / compilations with a ‘Name Your Price’ structure and that’s the only time money goes to the label. Artists that want to contribute donate a track to us as thanks for not being soulless bastards. We scratch each others back… and it works. TBH, we are pretty much doing it for arts sake and for the love of it now. ❤
#ad
Issue raises when you are trying to make a living out of it. The little detail you mentioned in the real end explains how you can survive like this.
@@bodyheatmusicchannel
I think that where promotion on social media, and good old fashioned touring by playing clubs and bars (now that Covid is over) comes in.
@@sawtooth808 social media promotion is not a way to make an income lol
In there you can spend money to promote the music that - if heard - does not give u money as explained. Its a dog biting its own tale, with few huge web institutions eating the whole cake
Gay
Funnily enough I wrote a paper at university in 2003 about torrents and music sharing and the fact that the reason the major labels were losing their minds was nothing to do with unrealized sales. It was the decentralized nature and the loss of control. You could see it in the language in all the press releases of the time.
Is there any way that I can read it. I'm very interested.
@@foodwav I've no idea. I'm sure I've got hard copies of all my work in a binder somewhere. It'd be interesting to look back on as this was pre streaming, I think it was even pre iTunes perhaps? I'd be interested if what I said would happen did actually happen! I think from memory I thought the majors would get a better handle on it than they did, I didn't expect third party groups (Spotify etc) to formulate but back then labels and publishing houses held all the cards, it was unthinkable that a streaming service would have any power to call any shots.
indeed it follows along with my theory centralized power does not work. when u hand over your sovereignty to one-‘take $ & power we give you to run the country’ they turn on you and use the power against you while enriching themselves. the universally known ‘power currupts, absolute …. absolutely’ is truth! let go of ‘leaders’ ! rule your community yourself w/your neighbors. and damn close to utopia is what we receive..its hard work yes! turn off your tv and meet your neighbors damnit!
@@EwanMathesonIf you do find it i dare you to publish them somewhere lol
As an independent artist, I would prefer music go back to physical/digital sales. Most people would not torrent music but even if it was half of people I’d take it over earning nothing for my music I’ve put thousands of dollars into!
A good general rule of thumb I work to myself - If I enjoy an album enough to listen to it back to back more than once, I should consider buying it either digitally or physically. Bandcamp can do both. Support artists!
ないす
How about paying over $120 bucks for a concert? Spotify is great at discovery and playlist. I feel like they are putting less effort into merch anyways but charge 60 bucks for a tshirt at a venue.
That’s what I do. Every so often I budget $30-$40 to spend on albums and I think about the ones I really like. I also look for tours, music festivals and sales on clothing, banners, bumper stickers and other merchandise.
@@Shay416 Wait until you find out about the merch fees venues charge bands, 25-30%, utter robbery.
I love Bandcamp so much
I think a very interesting point you forgot to mention is that part of the reason the pay per stream is going is down is because of Spotify policy in developing countries. Because of investors Spotify needs to have a sustained growth of subscribers. In consequence they offer very competitive subscriptions that are 5 times cheaper than in the rest of the world. The rate you get paid depends on where your listener is from.
Yeah obviously. Because they have lower income. What do you expect? A monthly fee that is as much as they pay for rent?
@@F_imperialists Exactly! If Spotify keep the same subscription price as the US, that is 1/20 of the average salary in my country. Imagine spending 1/20 of your salary just for ONE music subscription.
That might well be true but I doubt it can explain a 30-50% decrease in per stream revenue for smaller artists which probably don't have many people listening from these countries.
@@F_imperialists If your finances are that low, don't subscribe to anything, get a cheap radio and try and build yourself up ($$)
And rightly so. Many countries have concert discounts for students. The same goes for Spotify and even AutoCAD. When graduates start earning, they will buy the products they liked while the discounts were available.
Hey y'all. I intend to do a stream or followup addressing some of the great questions here in the comments. I'm reading them all! 🙏🏼😁 EDIT: and here it is ruclips.net/video/-9qUfJme4eU/видео.html
Thanks! One thing I’ve noticed is the rise of spam songs on Spotify - people gaming the system with auto-generated songs exactly one minute long with stock photo album covers. I can’t even listen to radio mode anymore. I assume bot listeners are using these to generate royalties. I wonder how much effect that’s having on the royalty rate per stream going down?
@@dancrowdus also of note:
- spotify pads some editorial playlists with production music it's bought outright under one-off artist names.
- several people game the system by re-using title names (generally not copyrighted) or making huge volumes of poor covers
- lots of spotify listening is driven by unofficial playlists for popular video games or albums that curators charge artist to submit to (or, against spotify ToS, to be on outright).
- playlists mimicking albums that aren't on spotify then have different but somehow similar music, or cover music
- big companies with tons of ambient sound albums w/like a hundred 'songs' again just past the 1:00 mark.
There's so much dodgy stuff.
I am teaching Media at university, next week I will lecture the whole youtube/Spotify Royalty thing. I will show this video to my students! ;-)
I prefer streaming music on RUclips Music....they have the biggest selection of a music streamer; Spotify is missing a lot of music from small labels/artists.. especially some more obscure 80s and 90s electronic music.
Never once Subscribed to Spotify.....I use it every once in a while with ads...but to play 1-3 hour songs....because Spotify will never pit an ad in the middle of a track (so I do it as a way to force them to give me content without ads to support it).
A lot of people say they found so much great musicians through spotify and I agree, I did too. But also I feel like the whole culture of listening to music became more about consuming it. Like in the era of cd players I was going to the music stores and tried to find good albums there. And then I would listen to each album for a very long time and have enough time to appreciate it, learn the story behind it, learn the story of the artist behind it, etc. Novadays my spotify is a crazy mixture of everything on shuffle. I miss listening to the albums, and have albums not be 19-25 minutes long :)
its funny how i can remember all the lyrics from all the albums i owned in the 90´s..But i can´t remember most of lyrics from my spotify lists...Unless is one of the songs from albuns i owned... :D
While I agree with your generalization, all it would take is a few minor UI tweaks to vastly improve this situation so I hesitate to completely condemn streaming/spotify on this basis. They could more-closely enable the tradition of music-finding with a focus on the artist and/or the album, fostering more of a relationship or understanding between artist/listener. I hate how difficult it is to tap precisely on the right pixel of my screen to go to the artist/album associated with the currently playing song (god forbid I'm interested in the featured artist!). I tap the expanding menu more than any other button in the app, just to sort music into playlists or find the albums.
Despite its disappointing and generally ineffectual interface, I myself have been addicted to Spotify for at least 3-4 years now. First of all, I'm self-employed (~barely...) so music can be enjoyed at any time of day. Last year I looked back at my *Liked* playlist to gain perspective on my journey. I realized I discovered music at an avg rate of ~10 songs *_per day_* - basically an LP/day for a few years straight, 10K songs!
There's absolutely no way I would have been exposed to this much 'likeable' music before but I really have to go out of my way to explore what an artist has to offer. If I'm impressed enough by someone new I'll go through the motions of individually adding their albums that interest me to the playing queue and I'll individually _like_ each song I enjoy. This is easier than it was with previous platforms but still requires way too many clicks and way too much page-loading, considering the Artist's available collection is readily viewable at a whim. I also curate all my own playlists to utilize such a vast collection on a whim, I very rarely shuffle anything anymore. People generally just won't commit to going out of their way like this, compared to just letting play whatever comes their way.
Before spotify, I would discover music through YTs algorithm (Perhaps an album or 2 a month? Even that sounds generous.) and then buy it to continue to enjoy it any time, if it was on iTunes. Before that, was Limewire... My combined collection was merely 5k songs after 15 years of these methods.
I've also recently grown to to be an audiophile, so I care about the quality/fidelity of my favorite music. Fidelity is higher the closer you go to the source, so I go out of my way to pay for my favorites, as direct-to-artist as I can find digitally.
This is why shuffling is fucking stupid why do any of you people do it
@@loser-nobody @onem4nb4nd Your entire reply emphasizes the OP's point that listening has become about the ability to consume more and more music rather than having a relationship with the music you're listening to. One or two albums a month gives you some solid listening time to appreciate the music before moving on to something new. You can't convince me that you have the same relationship with your music collection consuming songs at a rate of nearly an album a day. You'll have already lost the ability to re-listen to the majority of them within a few weeks.
I also think all the hurdles you have to jump in order to have a semblance of control over your music collection is a deliberate ploy by Spotify and not a failure on their part to tweak the UI. It benefits Spotify for their customers to be disconnected from what they're listening to because it keeps those customers tied to their service. They literally don't know enough about the music they've been consuming to replicate the experience on another platform. Spotify makes it difficult on purpose. Personally, I found using Spotify to be endlessly frustrating and gave up after a few weeks.
You can still do that with Spotify though?
I really like electronic music, and I've noticed many of my favourite producers seem pleasantly surprised by Soundcloud these days. Some of them have released stuff exclusively on there and some of them have voiced their surprise at the royalties they've received. I realise that the community is still there for electronic music in a way it isn't for other kinds but I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
haha, SoundCloud and EDM is like peanut butter and jelly.
@@heroslippy6666 aphex twin files
I thought Deezer was better when it comes to royalty payouts. SoundCloud looks like they pay peanuts
I rejoined Soundcloud again recently due to media releases that they were going to pay artists a lot better than other streaming services. Though after about half a year of being on it I found that you had to be "invited" to be paid + you had to have a paid artist account with them to be eligible in the first place. The system on how to get invited was not transparent and it was just costing me money to create content for them, so I jumped back off again.
The monthly payment I was getting from them was paying for my Pro subscription for over a year, so I considered that a win. Then I released a new album and got paid $70 one month and $50 the next. That was, as the kids say, a serious W
When I was a teenager I always bought (or sometimes ripped hehe) entire albums and listen to them on repeat. Someday I started using Spotify and kinda got lost into it. In recent weeks though I started to fall back into old habits and enjoy listening to entire albums again. I think that Spotify is great for discovering new music but I feel like it doesn't encourage to listen to one artist or album. Instead it encourages to listen to playlists, which can be super cool but it is a different way of listening.
If you like a song then maybe you like the album and then maybe you like the artist and then the best way to encourage that artist you like to keep producing music you like is to buy their music and I'm 100% ready to do that
see the entire way i listen to music is playlists. since i've been old enough to deliberately listen to what i want to, i've used playlists. i'm hardly ever going to just play an album and i don't think it's reasonable to expect people to start doing that
@@heroinfathr The old debate. It for sure is on Spotifys end to appropiately pay artists but it would also be very punk rock of you if you'd buy music you really like because that's the best way to support the artist
music listening is way easier for people who can just enjoy entire albums. it was personally very easy to make the switch from spotify to buying/downloading for me cuz I don't like using playlists
@@amazingpasta666Same here, I do like playlists, but only if I'm making them. It seems people are using Spotify like the radio, music becomes background noise and there is no emotional connection to the art itself, it's just sounds to drown out the quietness. One of my favorite bands removed their music from Spotify a few years ago, didn't bother me as I already own all their albums, but many fans were upset. IMO, if the music was that good and people truly wanted to support these artists, they would pay for their music, or at the very least, buy merchandise, but they won't, nor do they go to concerts.
Whether you listen to an entire album or not is entirely up to you, not Spotify.
Despite all the problems with streaming services, I still like them. I've got many thousands of songs in my spotify library, which would cost an eye-watering amount if I was to buy them individually (and even more if I was to buy every album I have 1-3 songs from). Maybe I'm being unreasonable expecting to get all this for just £10 a month and I should just pay up, but the reality is that if push came to shove, I would only buy a small fraction of my current library. The net result would be that I would give more support to a handful of artists, but no support at all to the rest, while also having a worse experience.
Similarly, when artists quit spotify, it doesn't make me go buy their music on another platform, it makes me stop listening to them. I want to listen to music, not faff around switching between 5 different platforms and syncing downloads across 3 different devices and having to put my card details in every time I find something new. I'm happy to pay someone to solve that problem for me and right now Spotify/Apple/Amazon are the best way to get a majority of the music I listen to in one place.
Btw, when I was a kid I could not have afforded my (mostly pirated) itunes library for full retail even if I put everything I owned into it - I can't overstate how much the pre-streaming era model sucks for young or low-income people. If Spotify (and the hardware and bandwidth to actually use it ofc) had existed back then it would've been a game changer for me.
IMO the problem isn't about streaming services as opposed to buying songs/albums etc, it's that streaming services have recreated the worst aspect of the old system: a tiny percentage of artists get paid more than they could ever spend (more listens AND they get to negotiate better rates), the majority fight over scraps, and the middlemen take a lion's share of the profits of both groups. Streaming services made it worse in some ways (e.g. the algorithm reinforces the rich-get-richer dynamics by favoring already-popular music) but none of the problems are unique to streaming. It's just capitalism.
The solution is to divert less money towards platform/record-label-owning capitalists and the top 0.1% of artists and more towards the 99.9%, but the beneficiaries of the current system will fight tooth-and-nail against that. I can't imagine a not-for-profit streaming platform surviving against the big dogs, except as a niche product that's missing a huge percentage of artists from its library. It's almost impossible to start up a new platform - nobody wants to sign up to a platform with 1% of the library of the established options, and artists won't put their music on a platform nobody uses. With enough money you can bootstrap that process by paying the big labels/artists to sign on, but that's exactly what we're trying to avoid (rich-get-richer) and besides, a not-for-profit will never get that kind of investment.
If such a platform existed with a library comparable to Spotify's I'd switch over in a heartbeat even if it cost a bit more, I just can't see it getting off the ground. Hell, as a software developer this is would be a perfect intersection of my interests and I'd even be happy to volunteer on a FOSS project to that end. But the problem isn't building it, it's licensing and getting a supermajority of artists on board.
Me too. Neil Young left Spotify. Oh well, bye bye.
I rent music with Spotify. I have dozens of playlists with many thousands of songs. I couldn't/wouldn't buy all that. All kinds of music. Same with youTube.
The music business has been screwing artists for 100 years. Sad, but not my problem..
@@headpump you are part of the problem. No alibistic bullshit that you try to justify it with will help.
I think one factor that may help an open source, or non profit streaming platform succeed, is that people want to give money to artists, if they get the idea that almost all the money they pay goes directly to their favourite artist and the rest goes to a non profit that exists entirely to benefit artists and their fans, then they might sign up to a tiny platform just for that. We need to consider that there's lots of different types of fan, not just normies who want to listen to Top 40 songs in the most convenient and mindless way possible. A tiny family owned restaurant that makes excellent food for a good price can exist in the same market as McDonald's, and they aren't even competing with each other. They have completely different customers. I for example don't subscribe to Spotify, because it doesn't give me what I want. A huge chunk of the music I like isn't on there, I don't like the interface, their shuffle algorithm sucks, it's not great for finding new music for me, and I don't believe in giving money to Big Tech, for the exact reasons outlined in this video. I can't be the only one who feels this way. Such a platform doesn't need millions of subscribers, it could start with just a few. It could also be started by artists potentially.
You’re a fool thinking you’d spend $10 a month forever for the music you listen to. & dumb enough to not give it to the artists you even listen to.
@@us3r11 That's not how the free market works. Customers will generally go for the easiest choice. The problem is not in the consumer or the provider or the artist. They're doing what is easiest for them to make/save money while getting the quality they desire. The problem lies in legislation from government. The government is the only body powerful enough to restrain a runaway free market.
Benn, seriously, thank you for the work you do. As a musician, songwriter, producer etc. who puts in so much time and money to create music and gets barely anything back, I feel like you're one of the most important voices for us today.
Spotify and algorithms catch a lot of flack but I wouldn't have found out about any of the smaller acts that I now follow without them. It would be back to the 1990s for me where I basically only listen to what's on the radio or what someone brings up as being good... and even then, they have to let me borrow the CD because I'm not paying $15 for a CD of something just to see if it actually is an act I like. Honestly, I'm old enough to where I'd probably just listen to the stuff I'm already familiar with and be happy with that.
I feel like record labels are a big part of the artist payment issue. When you look at their financial statements, Spotify pays out about 70 to 80 % of their revenue to record labels and music publishers. I think the question to be asked is are record labels and music publishers paying out anything even remotely close to 70 to 80 % of what Spotify gives them to artists?
Also worth a note - many electronic artists and labels withdrew from Spotify last year due to ethically dubious revaluations about where profits were being invested..
This makes me sad. Spotify has introduced me to so much music, and has reinvigorated my love of rock and roll by letting me listen to so many old albums and bands that I never had a good chance to before. Knowing it is probably going to fail and go away sucks. There is no way I can afford to buy all those songs/albums individually - and I wouldn't even know which ones were even worth considering buying without something like Spotify to introduce me to them. My life as a music fan will be a lot worse without these streaming services.
I get what you’re saying and if you don’t want to give up streaming altogether, platforms like tidal or Qobuz are priced about the same and while they are both still finding their ground in terms of UI and what they have to offer I can say that, for example, tidal’s recommended algo might be better for finding new music. for example: I’ve noticed that it doesn’t just recommend big names in any given genre and it also seems to be able to correlate different artists who are in certain ‘scenes’ regardless of whether said artists sound remotely similar, which is a pretty sophisticated way to approach things imo. I dunno, just my two cents but, if Spotify gets a wake up call from enough people moving away from their site, then maybe they’ll have to adapt in ways that are (let’s at least say) somewhat more mutually beneficial as opposed to predatory. And those other streaming services aren’t leagues better for indie artists, but you don’t have to be leagues better for that difference to make an impact.
@@dwellynconway4721 But he says in the video that tidal is just as bad for the artist
It's not going anywhere mate
@@fredrik303 Read the end of my first comment. I’m aware they’re not as different as many might want them to be. I have also not built my opinion around this one RUclips video… yes other streaming platforms are working off of a similar model, I still disagree with a lot of Spotify’s decisions as a company (more than almost any other platform of a similar ilk) and I still think that IF someone HaS to use a streaming platform they’d be better off using another one. Just my two cents. But by all means, do your own research And make your own educated decision.
@Retroman i can sense youre a 12 year old so i wont argue with you
I watched this video, myself being one of the naive people who thought that paying a spotify subscription was a fair way to contribute to the industry and was shocked to say the least. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Unrelated though, I have to point out the fact that I had no idea who you were until you mentioned The Flashbulb and I realized I have been listening to your music for over three years and... I discovered it through a recommendation in spotify. How ironic and complicated this makes it all. I think I will visit your bandcamp page right now!
I have hope for soundcloud and deezer's new payment model where they take a buck or two off the top of the subscription fee and the rest is distributed to the artists that that individual account listened to, based on how much they listened to which artists. Sure it's not a guaranteed living but it feels like a fair share of what money IS coming in.
This should be the only way the money is distributed.
From my understanding this is what a RUclips Premium subscription does too and it's awful that Spotify subscriptions don't. Last I heard Spotify collects all the money they are paying out to artists into a big pot and then distributes it out based on collective listen time. It doesn't take much to realize you can set up a bot farm to continually listen to certain artists on free accounts and siphon away more of that payout from those that don't do that.
@@Darth_Insidious Google can afford to throw away millions. Sony cannot
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 This has nothing to do with how much money Spotify pays out, just with how they proportion it. They wouldn't be paying out any more if they switched to how RUclips Premium does it.
I have been on Deezer for a year now because they said they would use the user centric payment system, but so far they still didn't do anything about it. When will they finally implement it? Now they pay artists even less per stream than Spotify.
Spotify's value proposition is making tons of music easily available. It is easy to say that people could create decentralized equivalents to all of these social media companies, but I think that glosses over the fact that making good software is really hard.
I agree with you. A decentralized solution assumes that there are a bunch of talented coders who are very passionate about music (or also right music) and are willing to build very complex software which will likely take years for almost no personal benefit. It’s just not realistic. If software engineering was quite easy, then sure, but then the world would be vastly different.
even Spotify sucks at making good software
Agreed. Building and maintaining the infrastructure of a service like Spotify which serves millions of users is a massive technical challenge. To build a decentralized platform which does the same thing while providing the kind of experience that users expect would take the technical challenge to a whole other level. This is not going to happen, at least not in this decade. As great as it would be to see some kind of open-source, decentralized content distribution platform, it would be a massive undertaking requiring millions of man-hours donated for free. In fact, I'm not convinced it's even possible to have a decentralized media distribution platform in today's world which provides the kind of seamless experience that users expect.
Music streaming platforms are here to stay unless a more convenient way of delivering music to users is devised.
@@sioncamara7 Your statement contradicts itself because you already said that these people are theoretically talented coders and passionate about music, but said doing this work would be for no personal gain. But that is the gain. That's the personal gain - they'll be improving the field of music and media in general.
@@vash47 that is just for file sharing right?
Thankyou for being a broken record! I'm also a broken record about this and use what I would spend on a Spotify subscription every year to purchase on bandcamp and keep a personal offline digital library!
I actually found a nice compromise to the 'i don't agree with Spotify but recognise on several fronts I need to be there'
I upload my singles to streaming services and only have the rest of the release available on bandcamp
Nobody ever mentions Deezer. A streaming service with a bigger library, better audio quality, cheaper subscriptions, available in more countries and apparently paying artists almost 40% more than Spotify. I had it for more than a decade, simply because it was the first streaming service I heard of, I believe was launched before spotify, and always seemed better in comparison. One of life's mysteries.
I’m using Bandcamp, but that’s also my fear. They’ll cater to artists for now, until they get enough customers, then they’ll roll out the blitzscaling. Also… whatever happened to Moog? Must have just got beaten out by Spotify.
Edit: I meant MOG. Turns out they shut down in 2014.
Now that "Mr. Exclusive" aka. Epic is involved... I fear for the worst.
moog? the synthesizer?
Moog? have you the right name, Moog make synths, their customers are musicians.
I think most hardcore fans of any band will support them by buying their albums and merch not mentioning going to their concerts. Spotify to me are a way to listen to music I would never listen to otherwise and their algorithm have introduced me to bands that now are some of my favorites.
Hence good amount of artists make most of their money on tour. They use streaming as a way to promote
worst part of this to me, is that outside bandcamp, spotify is still my biggest source of income from my music, and its more constant than bandcamp which spikes around album releases and then dies down. might be a marketing problem on my side, but still.
For me it is youtube. Better revenue and I have more clicks here.
@@Ufkatuale i don't have much momentum on youtube personally, my work schedule and especially release schedule doesn't lend itself to the algorithm very well. heck i'm not even monetized due to low subs and views.
@@combatplayer if you are signed to a distributor with content-id, you should always get monetised. Something like Label engine does this for example.
@@sliels oh yeah content-id is an option. I dont normally select it though cause i dont mind people using my music in videos and stuff.
@@combatplayer you can turn off monetisation/takedowns for content ID so people can still freely use your track!
Spotify is uninteresting, the color, the look of it, seeing how many other people have favorited the same song, what a social media for music.
I'd be willing to pay 2-3 times more for Spotify if I knew that extra money went to artists.
Not me tho damn 3 times 😭
@@cheese4758 Well, I used to buy music directly all the time. I listen to more different music now and pay less than I ever have in my life.
Loool speak for yourself, man’s tryna fatten up millionaires pockets even more 😂😂😂😂
@@HamzaKhan-vd5vc If you read the first three words of my OG comment, then you should realize that I am indeed "speaking for" myself. Funnily, though, you attempt to speak for me immediately after deriding the idea of trying to speak for another.
Only a very small percentage of musicians I listen to are millionaires, but even if they were that wouldn't change my preference for them getting money instead of mostly just Spotify.
@@Dschano Not a bad thought. The main reasons I'd like to see Spotify do this are simplicity for me, and also encouraging more musicians to put their music somewhere I have easy access.
Spotify determines how much of my current sub goes to a specific artist based on my listening history (more or less). I like that more than trying to deliberately manage donations. Especially tricky when listening to many different artists.
But again, it is a solid suggestion.
1:22 - This is probably stock footage, but for anyone who does this, please use calculated columns instead! The syntax for this in Google Sheets is =ARRAYFORMULA(formulahere), and in Microsoft Excel it's =functionname(tablename[@[columnname]:[columnname]]). Examples in Sheets: =ARRAYFORMULA(A$A:A+B$B:B), and for Excel: =SUM(Table1[@[A]:[B]]). You can also use IF-statements to only compute columns where one or more of the input values are present. This is really important for large, non-static spreadsheets where new information is frequently added.
nice try
this somebody excels
Don't do this. It makes mustard gas
🤓
Don't do this - export the data to an actual database if it's too large for simple formulas and start using standalone data libraries to analyze it.
Big artists and big labels > any number of medium/small musicians.
As far as Spotify keeps the first ones on its side, I am sure it simply can't fail.
Keeping the big labels on its side = Never earn any money.
@@luobomu9747 yea but they also would fall into bankruptcy if they tried before they could pull it off
I am an economist (and a bedroom musician), and I can only applaude your analysis of the business model. I am supporting artists on bandcamp, and have never had a spotify subscription.
These investigative video essays of yours are amazing! Totally agree with your take on this topic as well with your previous videos on AI art, etc. can’t wait for more videos from you 🙏 subscribed! 💜
Hello! Cool to see you here!
My personal experience is I've never listen to so much music since streaming was a thing, and it's my main way of discovering new music, sifting through new music, old music as well, and deciding what I like enough to physically buy.
I've never wasted a dime buying an album just to find out I'm indifferent about it or don't care for it.
I guess the message here is the consumers so you're not supporting your artist of choice by listening to them on Spotify, you're supporting them by buying their album we're sending them money directly to continue their efforts.
*Nothing makes me want to cry more than finding an artist on Spotify who's music I find amazing and see that they only have like 10 monthly listeners.*
As a noise Artist myself, i hate it that my shitty Music, have more monthly Listeres than some real musicans
Yes thats the band Father Figure for me, cool ass fusion band, cant find literally anything about them
it's probably because their quality isn't all there but you really like their specific niche and style
Yeah, I’ve found bands like that before. To be fair, not many people listen to heavier metal sub genres but seeing a band that’s so good only have 15 monthly listeners or followers makes me sad.
Tread, I love his voices unique sound and they have like 550 subs and nothing since 2016😢
Feels like everybody forgot about youtubes existence. That was truly the first form of streaming. And no, before spotify you didnt listen to albums you listened to music on ytb
I still do. RUclips Music is pretty great, and I find WAY more new content there than I ever did using Spotify
I tend to find more interesting bands on RUclips music. Spotify only gives bands that have a similar sound. Sometimes I want something new to add to my playlists. I don’t want everything to blend into one. I want to hear a song start and to get excited because it’s drastically different from the last one but still fits in. Spotify doesn’t do that. My own playlists of albums I have bought do, RUclips music does that sometimes as well.
Well, I grew up listening to albums and radio. Then I moved on to CDs to replace all my old scratched records. Now most of my listening is either from youtube or the digital copies of CDs or digital downloads on my computer.
I went from RUclips to Pandora to SoundCloud and then to Spotify.
Honestly I was shocked, been using Spotify for a while but I listened to some dj sets on RUclips and within a few hours I'm finding incredibly talented artists with only a few hundred subscribers. Honestly I think that being a video platform RUclips kinda forces you to engage a little more as a viewer rather than just putting on a Spotify mix and never really looking into the artists
About the limited album thing, I recently encountered something similar. We had an exclusive vinyl track on our EP and our label asked us not to write it anywhere, because then Spotify would be mad and not give us the banner on new music Friday. So we kept low and got the banner, they don’t like exclusives on other platforms of limited editions etc. Anything relating to diminishing their library is strictly not allowed, if you want Spotify promotion:(
Maybe because being 50+, but I still prefer to buy music instead of streaming. Used to be mostly cd's, now bandcamp or via (what I presume to be) decent sellers. Also listen to Internet radio and YT music. Besides enjoying to support artists by buying music there's another aspect very important to me: I'm more aware of the music. I will read or listen to reviews, find out about the musicians etc. Therefor it's more of an experience. I'm much more aware of what I buy than what I stream.
Also, I prefer albums to songs..
The main source of income for musicians is performing in public. Spotify acts as a promotional platform. I don't know how stable the income was from physical media (discs, cassettes) before streaming, but it seems that it was even more difficult to get on the store shelf for the broad audiences. I don't believe strimming platforms like Spotify will fall in any close time cause big labels hold the majority of pre-streaming era music. People would like to listen to their favorite old stuff and will stay where the old stuff is located. So smaller musitians will be forced to stay close.
I agree with your thinking, or I should say there's where the money should be.
Before I started streaming, I would normally find about 5-10 new artists a year that I genuinely enjoyed and would want to hear more of.
I started spotify last year and I probably follow 30-40 new artists that I've never heard before (that none of my friends have heard about either).
That exposure alone must be worth something other than cash in the pocket.
It used to be the other way. 30+ years ago, artists would go on tour to promote their new CD/album. Now they drop an album to promote their tour.
How stable was it before? We musicians used to be able to live off of it without touring, well after doing a tour to promote it all over the country/all over the world. Think about someone who is getting close to retirement age, has kids or coming grandkids, some medical issues may make touring difficult especially for long tours. We can't survive off of having to play/tour ALL the time just to make a living (not getting rich from it). Reasons like this is why I have ventured into real estate. I'd like to have a family someday and actually be able to afford to support my family. I still play for a living at the moment but almost 30 years of load and unload, sleeping on a bus when touring, horrible diet when touring be a use you're never near decent food when on the road most of the time. It wears on your body. That's not sustainable either...
The difference is that with physical media, your income does not depend on usage but on ownership. You can buy a record and listen to it once, or you can listen to it to the point it is physically worn, the artist got a fixed amount and the artist got it instantly instead of over an undefined period of time (= eternity). If you do the calculations, you will find that in any case, the physical record earns the artist more. Even if you do a scenario where streaming revenue and physical revenue are exactly the same amount, you want to get it in a big bulk (=physical) instead of spread out over many years. Large sums upfront can be invested, if I only get 100 dollars per month, then it is difficult for me as an artist to invest it into creating a new record, doing promotion, upfront cost of touring, etc. If I get 10.000 at once because of sales, I can get higher interest on it, invest it in creating more music, and I don't have to wait 10 years of active listening from my audience to get it.
Of course public performing earns you more money because it is an opportunity to sell merchandise (which has the highest profit margin), that's how dire the streaming platforms pay out. But touring is really expensive, often not really profitable, and high risk as you have all your cost up front.
With live music, I feel like those artists and labels who don't know any better would probably go with LN/TM for venues, promotion, and ticket sales. Which is another big problem.
TM: Ticketmaster
LN: LiveNation
After the recent update, it wont be long until people start leaving spotify for better alternatives
yep, i've been thinking about it... I want to focus on promoting on a better streaming platform.
*where is my like button ?!*
The problem here is with labels, Spotify doesn’t make any money, and the other major services are all subsidized by the tech giants other business lines. Personally I use Spotify a lot, and it has led me to purchase traditional media and attend more concerts.
Recently I found the album Awe by An Abstract Illusion, something that was quite outside what I normally listen to but I’m glad it showed up on a random playlist. Ended up purchasing the record through band camp for $60 on the pay as you think it’s worth it model.
I think the sad reality is that it’s not just streaming that is unsustainable to artists, but the music industry in general is broken.
For some artists, the lack of royalty payments could also be viewed as "marketing fees." Not saying every artist gets the same exposure on Spotify, but unless we're going to completely revert back to brick and mortar record stores where someone is making a recommendation for new music and letting me put the album on for a trial run, Spotify DOES do a good job of getting new content to listeners. I've discovered many, many artists through Spotify that I have supported monetarily on tours, merch, and the occasional album purchase. I don't look back with even a hint of nostalgia at maintaining a record collection. Spotify's model may be terribly lopsided (who's surprised by that, though?) but it does accomplish something in the mainstream audience.
How are you profiting off of that „marketing fee“ if the consumer doesnt have any reason to spend additional money in the first place? Mostly because she already has access to your back catalogue and thinks you, as the artist, already get money for every single stream from spotify, anyway.
@@hoozn Because it's not about streaming. From what I have gathered, streaming makes up less than a quarter of revenue for music artists. Shows make up half. If Spotify (or any other streaming service) gives me access to discover an artist that's new to me, I'm going to be looking to attend a show. Thus putting more money in their pocket than if I just bought an album. I realize this viewpoint isn't applicable for every artist, especially in some genres of heavily produced music. But where artists 50 years toured to promote their albums, artists these create albums to promote their tours. The money has shifted. I just don't accept that offering music on a streaming service is "bad for business" when so many artists are capitalizing from it. Doesn't mean Spotify is the answer or best platform, but if this is approached as getting your name out instead of "lost revenue" I think there's a positive side to this.
look @@MileHighGrowler I get your point and I know those stats regarding revenue distribution. but the thing is, that this only tells half of the story: the revenue share from concerts is comparatively big, not because streaming is such a great marketing tool that results in a high demand for tours and, but simply because artists earn comparatively little from streams.
this was even mentioned in the video: literally a handful of sales on bandcamp (300 if you assume a price of around 10 bucks for the album) accounted for the same revenue as years of streaming several other albums did. so of course artists depend on tours, since streaming wont pay any bills.
and this is where the crucial part comes in: one of the most prominent arguments for streaming in this video's comment section is "I would never be able to afford buying all those tracks"... so why should those people spend even more money on concerts? if anything, there now is even more competition for smaller acts, since it is not just you, whos getting exposure, but so is the band that played the local pub the night before.
this means the audience has to think about where to spend their money, and usually it is the event that offers the biggest bang for the buck, i.e. taylordrakeadelemarooncoldplay with fireworks and 2+ hours of showmanship in front of a gazillion people...
@@hoozn I guess. I dunno. I haven't been to a venue that holds more than a few hundred people in over a decade. I follow the small acts and support them live (because I love the energy of live music). If streaming services ceased to exist, people would just go back to pirating where there's no money to share (I don't condone it, just saying that's a reality and why P2P was such a big thing before streaming and hasn't really been since). I guess the bigger question then is why are people in music. Is it for the art, the entertainment or the money? We all make sacrifices with our jobs and can't have it all. I choose to look for the positives in any scenario, that's all. And I think there are positives like discovering bands that I would not have found otherwise, who in turn I have financially supported by going to their shows and buying merch.
@@MileHighGrowler you soud like someone who is happy to spend time and money on music, regardless of streaming services, because, as you said, you love the energy of live performances and live music as a whole.
that, however, is most likely not a consequence of using streaming services. they serve a completely different purpose, i.e. background entertainment when and where you, the listener, want it. but the existence of a streaming service per se doesnt magically turn you into a concert-goer (just like discovering cooking shows on netflix doesnt make you spent your money in restaurants, if you werent already willing to do so).
therefore, your initial argument ("marketing fees" for people "discovering" your music) falls flat, because the sheer size of the userbase (and thus the number of people going to your concerts or buying records & merch) is purely fictional. moreover, it does not translate into revenue: if anything, "home-listeners" are going to spend even less, because there is no need to buy records anymore. and concerts are still a very local thing: it may be nice to discover some undergorund musicians from all over the world, but unless they are coming to your town/area (which costs them travel expenses on top), you probably wont go to one of their concerts, ever... and the bands that are playing in your area? lets be honest: you dont need a streaming service to "discover" bands that play the venue around the corner.
on a sidenote: would piracy realy be that bad?
apparently, smaller bands dont really lose much in terms of revenue anyway (as mentioned in the video), and at the same time, as a "pirate" you have to start digging again and cannot rely on algorithms and a single play button.
I think that analyzing Spotify only from a monetary perspective is the biggest flaw in this analysis, musicians get paid far less on youtube and yet I can find all if not more music on youtube than I can find on spotify. A more extreme example is tiktok -- you get paid for the amount of videos that use your music, not the amount of streams a video has, so you could make less than a cent if a video with 10 million views uses your music.
The reason for all of this is a lot of artists want to be popular first, and make money second. It becomes a slippery slope, no matter how low the payout is, because it's like trying to win the lottery every time you drop a song. It doesn't matter if you have to get 2 million streams to win 10k or it's 10 million streams to get that same money. Most people wouldn't stop buying powerball tickets if the odds of a jackpot decreased from 1 in 292,201,338 to 1 in 400,000,000. People aren't always rational economic actors, and our minds aren't built to comprehend numbers of that size. Spotify is going to continue pretty much robbing musicians for years, and 99% musicians are going to keep uploading their music to it because it's not a rational economic decision to be a musical artist.
BTW I'm not saying it's not doable to make a living off of music, either, but it's REALLY hard to be truly financially secure as a musician, and it's really easy to rationalize staying on spotify, youtube, and tiktok, in case it one day comes in clutch to meet next month's rent on time.
Man, I had this exact feeling the other day when they emailed me to say "we are increasing our pricing...", at that moment I thought, there is no way Spotify is gonna last! I seriously miss the p2p days of discovering new music from friends and online communities. Now we all just wait for an algorithm to tell us we might like something 🙄
I think i do really like the centralized model.
i dont want to have to switch apps or websites if i want to listen to a song thats not on the same platform
I would especially hate having to look up where a song is even available for streaming.
On top of that i love having a single "songs i like" playlist that i can always put on shuffle (tho spotify's "random" algorithm keeps repeating the same stuff over and over)
Switching apps and websites is what the centralized model offers. The video might have not explained it in the best way, centralization mainly refers to “centralized control” not “centralized content”.
The decentralized model means everyone agrees to to a set of rules and based on these rules they openly share content, no one centralizes arbitrary control over what is accessible. That means with a single app you can access everything that was ever shared, you just need an app that’s compliant with the defined rules.
With the centralized model, if an artist signs some exclusivity deal with a business, you won’t get their content unless you sign up with that specific business. This doesn’t happen as much with music but it’s exactly what happens with Netflix, Disney+, etc, if you want access to everything you must have multiple subscriptions and use multiple apps. Everyone is centralizing their content inside their bubbles because they hold total control over said content.
@@rockerbacon Ah, thanks for the explanation...
but its sorta hard to imagine anything decentralized that is accessible by different apps
somebody has to host the files and that host would need either a "public" way to further distribute it to a bunch of different apps that is universal for hosts so its easier to access or it would again end up with different apps only being abled to play music from certain hosts until theres either one mega app where hosts apply or one mega host where apps apply which would only mean that hosting and playing get split
also what would be the monetary system of decentralized music? buy from different hosts and you get them all to play on your fav app? kinda gets expensive quickly, main reason why i dont purchase music, im poor af but i can handle 10 bucks a month for everything spotify has to offer, even tho it fucks over creators (how does it compare to youtube music?)
@@chriser5146 The thing you are missing is that files can be transferred over the internet. If artists/platforms sold mp3s instead of subscriptions, then it doesn't matter what app you use to listen to your music. An mp3 is an mp3, and you can listen to it on almost anything anywhere. It's the same with mp4s for video.
@@ladyravendale1 But then I have to deal with mp3s. Been there, carried my trusted Sandisk Sansa with me, even put mp3s on my phone manually. It was enough of a pain that I didn't listen to much music, basically only my favorite playlist because it didn't change much. Then streaming services allowed me to easilly discover new music, and skip all the hurdle of managing files on my own.
@@Malthan This has also talked about in the comments, but when using streaming services, they control all the things. So what if your favorite artist decides that they don’t want to use that platform anymore, or what if the streaming service and record label get into a dispute? That content is gone from your playlists, they often don’t even tell you what was removed, and all you can do is cry or get a different subscription service that still has that artist. If you have the mp3 and any troubles happen, it doesn’t matter, because they can’t reach into your files and delete the music. This was also a point in the video, you can pay for the convenience, but as we are seeing now, the issues with music as a subscription are becoming apparent, like uncertainty if the content you enjoy will still be accessible tomorrow.
Great video and I agree with almost everything but I see one problem: Many people (including me as a student) don't have the money to support artist in a better way but still like to enjoy music. The amount of music I listen to on a barely basis couldn't barely be covered by buying 2 albums a month which is roughly what my current Apple Music subscription equates to.
Would love to hear your take on this.
Edit:
Wow, thanks for all the insightful replies!
To address a few things:
I obviously see the point of appreciating music more by buying less of it but on the other hand I'd miss out on so much good music. Also I listen to so many different genres and artists on a regular basis that it'd be close to impossible for me to choose a few specific albums.
Regarding piracy, I don't really see why it's better than using a streaming service. Yes, I do support a business that's inherently bad for the artist but at least they get a tiny bit of money from me. Also pirating is a lot of work compared to using a well developed music streaming app when it comes to actually curating a properly organized library of music.
Lastly I don't think that radio stations are comparable to any of this at all because you literally can't choose what to listen to and you can't do it offline properly.
So I think my final verdict is that we need streaming but in a different way. The subscriptions can be more expensive and it could be decentralized. That way the maintenance cost could sink and the artists will hopefully get paid a little better while people start to appreciate the music more because they pay a little more for it.
I think we'll just have to see what the future brings.
There're still ways to enjoy music via internet radio etc. And you might find that in the end you get more out of those 24 yearly albums than access to everything, at all times.
You've been spoilt, but it's at the sacrifice of the artist's fair payment. Before streaming and mp3 piracy, we all got by not just fine, but had a really great time with music. We weren't supposed to be given everything for next to nothing, because it takes years of hard work to create things. That's the balance in economy.
These stupid Communists or whoever is behind this have messed everything up.
What el-bo said but also, libraries are a thing and some of them have music.
Lots of artists put their stuff up on YT and other places for free.
And if you do end up pirating stuff, pay it forward when you're no longer a poor student.
back 30 years ago, when I was a "struggling poor student", I would buy 1 new album every 3 months, and just play the shit out of it, and the prior albums I had purchased. I would also be rather selective about what I purchased. Just because you have gotten used to free-lunch, does not mean the lunch is sustainable, or healthy, or fair.
Pirate the music until you are able to support the artists…
My first experience with Spotify was in 2009, it worked for like maybe an hour then my account was disabled for no given reason. But RUclips is much better for music anyways (at least for my specific needs), especially since a lot of unreleased music is available on RUclips.
RUclips is merely okay for music. RUclips Music is not nearly as good as Spotify as a total experience. The Spotify app is far better in terms of UI. Spotify has better sound quality. Spotify has better music discovery and the 'algorithm' that suggests music is much more finely tuned. Spotify is worth every penny it costs for a monthly sub and then some.
@@VincentsVideoVisions But doesn't it seem to good to be true? When you have an app dedicated to music distribution digitally and it has literally every song you could possibly imagine for a cheap monthly fee? like the video said, it's a tech stock dependent on infinite growth and venture capitol. All these companies that run on 0 profits will have their day of reckoning eventually.
@@TimothyCHenderson for sure, but until that day comes im going to enjoy it. Spotify has been around several years by now... I don't see them going away any time soon.
I prefer the youtube music suggestions, i found way more bands abd new styles, on spotify it feels like im listening to the same songs allnthe time.
(I listen like 8h a day)
@@df71091 what you get out of Spotify is relative to what you put into it. Artists you follow, tracks you listen to, playlists you make, playlists you interact with, etc. Once you've heavily interacted with spotify for at least 3 or 4 months it starts to really dial in your tastes and that's when the magic happens.
Really great job at keeping our attention. Very good demeanor. Great job 👏
I've been collecting a database of my music library ever since I got Spotify because I always said "Spotify is useful and all now, but eventually it will close down, then what will you do?" Spotify keeps getting worse for everyone it seems and they don't care. Maybe share holders will change their mind but let's be honest. They won't
I mean you can always download CD quality music from Spotify with a HiFi account.
That said unless something goes really wrong, music will always be available on the internet.
I'll make do, I guess. There's a pile of records somewhere at my parent's house, I lost all my CDs in the car, nothing is forever, except humans will always make music.
Spotify getting worse? How?
@@VincentsVideoVisions Removing content. Only providing shitty remasters. Public playlists are a literal scam.
@@redcollard3586 removing what content? I've been using spotify since 2016 and I make at least 1 playlist a month and out of all of those playlists there's maybe 2 dozen tracks at most that are no longer available,and even if they do remove content there's SO MUCH more to explore. And to be fair the algorithm is actually shockingly good at recommending music even if you have very niche/underground taste.
What do you mean by public playlists being a scam?
I love your videos on this subject Benn! I still feel taking down Spotify is a UX problem, it's the convenience factor, everything synced across multiple devices, but I'd happily pay more for it. I'll pay more, I just want to retain that convenience. If streaming an artist involved paying track by track automatically, or being on some plan that gives you X amount of streams of things you don't own, and if you run out you either buy more streams or you buy the album or whatever then I'd be into it. But I don't want to go back to managing my own music library, and I actually like the algorhitms as maybe because I have niche music taste it just does a great job finding stuff for me, often things I've never heard about. I have around 1000 playlists saved on Spotify over the years using it, I really love Spotify but not for what it does to artists, and I'd happily leave if there was a good alternative
If people leaving piracy behind is proof of anything it is that people will pay for convenience! And I think a mass exodus of artists to a more fair service, that maybe is a bit more expensive but also "fair trade" I think it could be a hit, it's just about convenience
I would do the same. I think a lot of people would. Someone above had the same idea I had, that I would gladly pay more for as well. The company providing the service takes a portion off the top then divides the remaining money among the artists you listened to.
@@kerbolax Remember what Gabe Newell said on why he started Steam. "Piracy isn't a price issue. It's a convenience issue".
Why Spotify started was to make it easier for pirates to get music legally and in a convenient manner. Similar to Steam on getting all your video games in one place.
Cancelled my Spotify since this year. Back to buying flac and using file players. It feels good to support artists directly.
Would you mind sharing were you buy flac? Leaving spptify is something I've been wanting to do for a while now, but I haven't found a place were I could buy music in a digital format to replace it
@@MarcosLand
There are online shops and sometimes the artist or label offer download from their own websites.
Some require a computer (not mobile device) for download.
Bandcamp is great for indie and self published artists.
Bandcamp also offers unlimited streaming and downloads (WAV/FLAC/MP3) for any music you buy through their platform.
@@pauln6803 I'll make sure to check it out then. Thanks
It feels old and time consuming.
@@famemosterrrrr Look, I don't disagree and know where you're coming from. Though as an aspiring artist myself, I understand the struggle of getting by while doing what you love, especially anything art-related. So I'd rather sacrifice some comfort and support those whose music I love. It's a personal choice for everyone.
What's wrong with using music services to recommend music? It was phrased with a subtext like its somehow an impure way of finding music. What's the "purer" way of finding new music supposed to be? Algorithmic music recommendation is far older than Spotify, and the current way of doing on demand streaming.
I think many independent artists at this point are just using Spotify for advertising purposes. They have to make money elsewhere (concerts, merch, etc.) Not signing any contracts with a record company is the first step to becoming profitable.
I got the same thing out of watching this video as I got out of watching Everything Everywhere All At Once --- yes, what you think you know falls apart when you scratch at it, but letting it fall apart is the way forward.
Very solid work! Thanks for doing this!
incredible video. no shaming, no overly emotional takes, just well articulated and interesting. important to hear for me, as someone who has overall enjoyed the experience as a consumer on spotify
it's rather disappointing that we have to point out a lack of those things I.E. that they are commonplace enough for their absence to be remarkable
Just found your page. Subbed, liked, and writing this to motivate that algorithm.
Really interesting bit on the "hum" and curious if you are going to be doing a follow up piece in regards to Ian (of NYT's prominence) running a scam? What a dirtbag, but nice of you to offer him the opportunity to do the right thing. Your verbal judo is on point. Well done!
The fact that Navidrome exists, a way to have your own Spotify-like app out of your own files running on any servers, means that decentralized music streaming is completely achievable. This being said, having to know Tech and how to set up servers as a musician is not exactly the skills that go hand-in-hand the most, but it gives me hope that one could look into ways of offering this sort of "private streaming servers". Like something a label or collective could manage or something.
Current jobs of a musician in 2023:
- Musician
- Producer
- Mix & Master
- Promoter
- Videographer
- Video editor
- Marketing agent
- Manager
I mean at this point we aren't changing much by adding Computer Tech in the same pile 😭
add influencer (for your own music)
@@FlipOfficial There is a reason labels take such a huge piece of their artists' sales. They do all of the non-musician things (..or in some cases they do even the musician part)
@@nitroanilinmusic I would completely agree with you if that were the case most of the time but sadly it’s not.
We are not longer in an era like it was in the 90's or 2000's where, if you are hot enough, they will write, distribute and do basically everything. All you have to do is just sit there and look pretty.
These days while they do take care of artists in terms of arranging marketing, promotions, gigs, photo shoots etc. most of the times they will ask of the artists to create some kind of a viral boom on the internet (now days mostly TikTok) before they even do any of that. So all of that has to come from the artist.
You do have people like, The Weeknd, Justing Bieber, Ariana Grande etc. that get taken care of by the labels, but that's your top 1%. At that point, please get paid for the work that you do to continue beating a dead horse until it stops spitting out money, you earned it as a label.
But then you also have people like Charlie Puth (regardless of opinion for his music) that has to make tiktoks to promote his music, John Legend a well established artist is being pushed by his label to go on tiktok and instagram to make videos so he doesn't get left behind. These were just at the top of my head I'm sure there are plenty more out there.
Unsigned artists are the ones that struggle the most and get punished the most by streaming services and it's up to the sole individual (or everyone in the band) to pick up the slack and be all of the things I've mentioned before.
k. I bummed myself out by typing this. gonna grab a glass of whiskey now. 🫠
@@FlipOfficial Justin Bieber and The Weeknd only got picked up because they were already going viral on RUclips. Ariana Grande's rich parents helped get her a Broadway gig when she was 15 and was then on Victorious/Sam&Cat which led to her eventual signing when - you guessed it - label executives saw videos of her singing covers on RUclips. Gotta be famous to get famous apparently.
You probably do not care, Benn, but I buy my music. In the old days, it was cassettes, then CDs, then mp3s. I still buy mp3s. It is kind of a hassle to manage that mp3 library, but I never jumped on the music streaming bandwagon. I want to build a music collection, not rent one.
Me too. Not always, but I've always had a fear in the back of my head that Spotify will one day be gone and that I don't actually own that music. I usually buy vinyl but also buy a lot of mp3s, it feels good to know that it's something I actually own and won't be gone tomorrow when some f'd up business sinks
This is the way
I ended up building my own mp3 streamer because none that I could find would just look at a directory, find MP3 files, read the ID3 tags, and serve them. This sort of software was all the rage in 1998. Not so much today.
I host my own server using OwnTone and my kids know why I buy music on Bandcamp instead of subscribing to Spotify.
That is still subscribing to a paradigm where “music” is a scarce asset that you can own. Fair enough if you enjoy the collection aspects of that, but this is not what we will revert to if streaming services shut down. It will be back to piracy. The marginal cost of a copy of a song is essentially 0. Any attempt at getting away from that by making it artificially scarce via regulation, NFT-bullshit or otherwise is doomed to fail. The cost of a Spotify subscription is pretty much exactly the maximum that most people are prepared to pay for access to unlimited copies of every single song in the world. IMO artists need to find a way of getting paid for their work (which is immensely valuable) as opposed to for copies of their music (which are essentially valueless and are facilitated by services like Spotify anyways, leaving them with what little revenue there is to find here)
Holy crap, I had no idea you had an active RUclips channel, Benn! I've been in love with your music since 2008 and somehow never realized you're doing this. Well, time to binge-watch everything you have to say! Stay awesome, man
I wish I'd seen this when you first uploaded it Benn. Wow...First off, even as jaded as I've been about Spotify and the measly crumbs they decide to "bequeath" to us musicians, I was rather stunned by your earnings on Bandcamp vs. Spotify! You made more in 1 WEEK on Bandcamp than "3 f-ing YEARS" on Spotify? Jesus H...I don't really think outrageous is even close to describing how deeply wrong and corrupt that is. I already knew a bit about the clandestine corporo deals the majors were engaging in with them. However, my head and soul hurt. And I'm only halfway through the vid...Well, I'm back. I didn't know the term Blitzscaling but have certainly seen plenty examples of it. Well, you managed to tie everything the future for music could potentially be in a fairly nice bow. You are so correct, music will still be around even after these creator abusing streaming sites die. At this point, anything that puts even a small smile on my face is gold. Hopefully more musician friendly streaming sites with fair royalties will come to fruition. Thanks Benn for your well researched and thought provoking appraisal of Spotify.
Thank you for this video. I've been considering pulling my music from Spotify and starting a decentralized music server for my community for a while now, and it's just always great to see your perspective on the ""industry""
it might be fun or freeing, but this is mostly a great way to go from making very little to making nothing or losing money.
Would be troublesome for me to check every artists on their own server. That's my issue with decentralization in general
One thing I can say Spotify offers to listeners is a huge archive of vintage popular music in all genres. I don't think they will fail. They make it too convenient to find your favorite music from 30 years ago.
Yeah for the end users it will always be great in theory, but the point of the video is that it's too fragile, something as simple as a few thousand artists leaving or losing subscribers could make it collapse. The vid already showed that artists are getting less and less money, so it's not out of the question that eventually they'll just start leaving.
@@SunglassesEmoji small artists will leave, great artists won't (unless because ideology reasons like Joni Mitchell)
@@arnaldofernandez exactly, those bigger artists no longer make the majority of their money off of these things. the business model has switched to tours and merch with this raising vast awareness for their product, the old business model was long dead before Spotify but he seems not to realize that yet
@@treyspiller3931 Well, even if that is true, i will not trade my indies for just listening to Pop again and again and again
@@SunglassesEmoji leave and go where? No big streaming service can pay well and no small streaming service can be as good as a big streaming service. Spotify might pay you less but there's no better alternative,
Thanks for saying this. People have been telling me to put my music on Spotify for years, but I just can’t fathom paying a service to host my music while I get nothing from it.
Exactly. Bandcamp it is
and if they want to use spotify so much they can just play it locally on their pc
Ever see Spotifys offices?
@@chillout8185 you know most of us use it on our phones... While out doing things. Like an adult
And you should listen to your fans
I think Spotify could be a useful tool to smaller music makers. Finding out where people are choosing to listen to your music today may be the info you need. If numbers are large enough that a list of cities or towns could create a profitable tour of those places. People like Taylor Swift who is popular everywhere does not need this from Spotify, but New Zealand's Bic Runga or Dave Dobbyn may find a selection of towns to play across the World.
Now I wanna know about the alt album version for Spotify and what problem arose from this 😁
I'm assuming that is going to be the next video. lol
This convinced me to finally drop streaming services all together. I switched over to Tidal from Spotify 2 ish years ago for a few reasons, MQA (a sham) & to better support musicians (a sham that I just learned about). Now on day 2 of listening to my existing digital library of ripped/physical CDs and I am realizing that it's not just a novelty; my listening feels more intentional, and I feel less reliant on a algorithm to feed me individual songs that I end up forgetting about after a couple of listens. Thanks Benn.
Me too, I stream my CD rips and (paid-for) downloads from our network drive. I don't listen to Spotify or radio.
Yeah of course it feels more intentional when you have to go out of your way to hear the music you want lol. That's like thinking music is more special because you paid $20 for a CD at the store decades ago. Meanwhile you're the minority and everyone else just pays for streaming services for the convenience and doesn't care what the people they're listening to are making per stream.
@@dsrree enjoy the streaming services now, while you still can. It's only a matter of time before it starts looking more like the TV streaming landscape, which is to say, making piracy look like the better option with how severely limited the services have become. Everything, by everyone, all of the time for X dollars a month isn't sustainable.
@@dsrree AKA: a minority that is trying to pay artists based on their worth to them rather than giving those funds to a glorified start up running on VC dollars.
Pop music is just product. Mass produced corporate garbage is meant to be bootlegged
I bought one or two cassettes per month when I was in college (oh and we had Columbia House too!). The rest of the time was whatever played on FM radio, including my college's radio station. Artists just can't make the same money from airplay or online and must tour right now to make reasonable money. Another thing is we all want new, various and interesting music. I bought CDs and cassettes of the three or four bands I liked most - not from 100 bands crowding for attention on a spotify playlist feed. And when CDs came out, Cassettes were sold at yard sales for .50/each and artists made no money from that. There just isn't an appetite for 1000 new bands coming out per month across the nation who want to make money and a career making music. In the 1980s, they did it by playing at clubs every night 4-5 nights a week. There is no right answer other than get a marketable skill and work in an industry - and do music on the side until you have a solid loyal following and can tour. I remember working at Fannie Mae in DC in 1994 and one of the managers had long hair and played in a metal band but kept his hair "up" while working in the corporate office space. He could do both - a good paying skill and music. Are people today only going to "follow their dream" into the future or build their dream through good life choices? Sure you might have to work at a day-job and do music on the side. I just don't see that as a huge problem. But I know many are revolting against "working for capitalism" and want to do the arts. Arts is consumed by capitalists of the world who pay for tickets, merch and music. Arts serves those with the money who share their money with the artists. There are so many good artists on SoundCloud, BandCamp and more - and yet will hardly ever get air play or tour any moderate sized venues - some rely on being on the 5th stage of a festival playing to 70 people and selling 30 t-shirts a day at the fest. The old saying was the people who made the most money during the California Gold Rush were the shop owners selling picks, shovels and other gear to the "miners". This is the same today - Guitar Center sells you the picks/shovels and venues and ticket sellers take their hefty fees if you ever make it to the "big show". In between, it's a million guys and their DAW writing interesting stuff - oh yea, DAW software companies, plugin-makers and all the rest are also reaping their money from you as you try to get there. Arts - it's hard. And that's the journey. Enjoy it the best you can. What's wild to me is the radio stations in my college-town (Rochester NY) play the same artists and albums now - as they did in the 1980s. Bob Seager, AC/DC, Police, et al. Anyway - enough of me for now...
Hi, I've been recording a couple of songs but i have nothing out there yet. Would you suggest that i go full Bandcamp? Will people be able to still identify my songs with apps like Sharzam? How would you advise that i go about this as a fresh artist who's trying to take advantage of your experience?
Small/indie artists typically have more success with bandcamp
The important thing to remember is that not all musicians have the same business model. The most financially successful artists generate most of the revenue from touring and live shows. For those artists, Spotify is a great partner because they can increase awareness, promote their shows and use Spotify data to understand where their fans are geographically to plan their tours.
For the musicians who need to generate income from recorded music, that model was dead long before Spotify. I’m sorry you thought that was coming back but it wasn’t.
One thing is that I would like streaming services to have a buy it now button that allows you to buy a digital copy. Seems like a good model would be explore while somehow creating a permanent collection. People used to listen to the radio while go and buy the albums they loved.
Thing is, people don’t go to Spotify to buy music. They go there to stream. And besides, isn’t digital purchasing on the decline due to streaming?
@@MaxAndrew A lot of people both stream music and buy it
Technically, you have that option with Apple Music since it's so tied to iTunes.
the problem is that most apps that would let you buy the album wouldn't let you download an independent mp3 file, they would let you download it and listen to it offline but you'd still have to use their app to play it, so if their service went down then you'd still lose access to the music. the problem is if they let you download an mp3 file that isn't dependant on their app and can be used with any mp3 playback app, then you could also just upload that file online and everyone could download it and use it, so 1 person buys it and 1000 people pirate it off them
All I know is that when my old band finally decided to move onto Spotify our iTunes and Bandcamp sales utterly tanked, like, overnight. We ended up so frussturated we uploaded our entire catalogue onto Pirate Bay and told the punters to go nuts cos we where out.
*Artists need to see this as a collective bargaining issue, & organize accordingly against the streaming services...!!!*
Musicians also have to look out for their own livelihood *individually*
Even if 100% of all musicians at ALL levels joined a 'union' (which is impossible), its only a pinky promise to follow suit. Many, many of them would immediately break that promise if they got a deal that only benefited them.
@@shahn78that doesn’t stop SAG from existing, so your point is?
@@Dave102693
a SAG membership is likely mandatory for a working actor in LA, while a working musician in LA doesn't need to join any union -- thats the difference.
Hope u understand now.
Like herding cats I'm afraid.
@@pseudonymlifts2 Thats a good analogy for musicians haha!
The limited release strategy I think is a great one; using streaming services as essentially advertisement platforms only. Certainly isn't what Spotify and friends would prefer, but for artists it's probably the best way to think about and use it; assuming that money is what you're after.
Seems to be working for Tom McDonald.
Edit: I get that in hip hop there's a big element of fake it till you make it, self promotion is a big part, and rappers always talk a big game, so he could very well be exaggerating about his sales for all I know, but it does appear that he makes a living doing what he does and he's definitely independent, not "independent" as in signed to a smaller subsidiary of a major label. And he appears to thrive off being controversial and hated so there's that. Apparently you can make money by pissing people off.
Holy FUCK how I am listening to the most lucid economic analysis since the last Chomsky bomb on a music channel?!?!?!? This is blowing my mind, thanks for this video.
As a producer, of course I agree with everything you say. As a consumer, I can't imagine life without Spotify any more. Nothing else provides the anywhere remotely near the same value to me. It's not perfect of course but having almost anything I need on demand is priceless. That's difficult to reconcile.
Every time there's someone on youtube saying that spotify will collapse, but it still there because there's no good enough alternative. I'm pretty sure I'll see another video of this sort next year, and spotify will still be there.
Apple Music?
Spotify will function as usual as long as it doesn’t get into a dispute with the record labels.
even if it did collapse im sure some big company would swiftly buy it up the spotify name is VERY valuable
u would also be buying the users basically too and millions of users and millions of paying users is VERY valuable
The only thing I would like to add, is that Spotify has its "Discover Weekly" playlist that I listen to every week and has introduced me to a bunch of my newest favorite bands. Not positive the functionality of the other site he mentioned, but I wonder if the reach of Spotify is worth more than the actual $$ made from the sale of your album.
After my debut album I had artists I admired 'perform' the credits of my album (sometimes turning the credits into their own songs), and then explain how unsustainable Spotify is and say a little PSA. It was near the start of the pandemic and easy to get a hold of people - a little Trojan horse to politely bite the hand that starves.
I like the idea of stream to own, which would work like buying credit for streaming. The artist sets the price on what they want for each song or album, and if you listen to it enough, you can listen or download it for free from that point on.
Streaming might be set at $0.001 per second of music you listen to. That gives you around 2.7 hours of music for $10, if my quick maths is right.
Point is the person you’re listening to gets the income from your plays, it doesn’t get split up and sent elsewhere. So if you listen to a whole album through a couple of times and the artist has set it the album as $20 to own, you can now stream it for free. Sure, it cost you $20 to own (or more/less depending on the artist), but over time you’re going to grow a collection of music that you keep going back to while you discover new music.
Also be great to incorporate bar code scanning so you can listen to music you’ve already bought on cd if it’s on the platform.
It's on average $0.004 per _stream_ so if a song is 4 minutes, that's 240 seconds or $0.000017 per second. For $10 you get 166,7 hours of music.
There was a company that tried to do this, though I think it was more like each subsequent listen to a song the amount you payed to it went up. I'm not sure if it still exists.
Bandcamp already has something similar.
You get x amount of free listens before you have to pay for the track or album and get unlimited downloads and streaming of whatever you've paid for.
sounds massively expensive most people inclusing myself don't pay for a per use basis as stuff can hike up fast gives me flashbacks of the days TEXTS AND CALLS costed
As a music lover, how I feel now compared to growing up in the 80s with radio and records is: I have way too much music accessible way too cheaply. My streaming library is forever growing with stuff I'll probably listen to once or twice or even never get around to listening to. More and more I see my Bandcamp library of purchased music as my actual "authentic" music collection. My tastes are way too obscure (drone and ambient) for streaming platforms to cater for, so 99% of my new music discovery is from dedicated blogs and Bandcamp. Thank God for Bandcamp (for now)...
I do like Bandcamp, but did think I heard the bell toll when Epic Games bought them. On the other hand, I appreciate the way Bandcamp can be used by artists to sell physical merchandise and media. Also providing visibility of upcoming live events and email subscription for new releases and messaging is interesting too. Though the latter can quickly get overwhelming.
Messaging and being overwhelmed is the problem. We need a model that favors rare but very important messages: new album, a show near you. The social media was built content flooding, which created content fatigue. I don't care what my favorite artist just ate or whom they "had a tremendous time with".
@@drrodopszin yes, it's like Facebook - it shows me eveything from cousin Fred (the one with posting diarrhoea) but won't show me nephew James' wedding pictures because James only posts when he's got something actually worth sharing. I won't mention the RUclips Shorts algorithm because it clearly wants to assassinate me! 😱
Can you elaborate on what an ideal distributed system for musicians would look like? What would the "mastodon of music" be like?
Basically like Spotify but without the record labels serving as middle men taking a massive cut of the earnings that should be going to the artists. And I think we'll get there one day. It's becoming easier and easier to publish and promote your own music or hire an independent contract to do it all the time. You really don't need a record label to be an artist these days.
Super interesting video Benn! I love music and finance so I'm LIVIN.
I've seen my streaming income tank over the last few years even though my monthly streams continues to climb. I was hoping I'd be in a place to hire some help for the channel at this point, but I'm only going backwards.
Yo I just wanna say, you made me realize that I have been living my life taking what these tech companies have done as gospel. I embarrassed that I haven’t thought more critically to even think that streaming was the problem. I’ll be a regular visit here. Seems like you have super pure intentions man.
Man, someone needs to put you in charge of the next decade's music industry. Everything you say makes so much sense. Makes me hopeful to see what's coming next. The fact that it isn't bandcamp due to it being bought by Epic is a bit of a downer though.
Hello Oscar!! Surprised and not surprised to see you here :)
but, the one who get to choose which live and which die is not the Musician or label,
it's the listener.
if the listener like to listen to infinite amount of songs on spotify, spotify will keep thriving,
even if there was a platform that pay the Artists fairly, if there was no listener use and listen to it, it's as good as dead.
tbh, Spotify is great for listener, it introduce you to a lot of unknown Artists that otherwise no one would even heard of,
Spotify is great for letting people listen to new music without their consent outside of the mainstream radio or chart, and that was a very big deal.
if nobody heard of you, it's impossible for you to create a meaningful fanbase or monetize your music in a meaningful way,
for the musician, Spotify is an amazing marketing platform, not a platform for making money,
you just use your spotify page as a leverage to make money in another way
@@jensenraylight8011 exactly like i get artists wanna make money but to make more means u cost listeners more and that would scare more off
You make a lot of great points but I must admit I am part of the problem. If Spotify where to fail aside from a few bands I truly enjoy I'm not gonna go buy new stuff. I spend $5/month and get Hulu with it. That's a hard deal to beat. I'd probably just start ripping mp3 files of RUclips again because that's cheaper. And the reality is a lot of other people would as well. I'm sure this is something you've thought about.
You don’t mention another reason to use a streaming service. The convenience of managing YOUR existing music on multiple devices seamlessly.
I pay Apple Music because I grew tired of copying music files around across devices and having to manually backup my iTunes library.
I’m not using it like Pandora where I get new works or matched artists. I’m just paying for it to free up my time not being a file admin.
But when you were being a file admin, you OWNED those files. Apple Music can suddenly take music down, start charging more, or just fail as a company and poof goes your "library".
I've never paid for AppleMusic and all my music library is synchronised on all my devices thru "Music", formerly iTune. (my 4 Macs, my iPhone(s) and even on my 2 old iPods)
@@FLH3official That is only for music acquired from Apple music. My library of CDs which I ripped into iTunes a decade ago can't be synced between devices the same way without a subscription.
@@LucMMailloux I still keep my iTunes local library synced with my account. So I only have to manage my PC library. I don't have to worry about moving my library to my phone and streaming TVs.
Because I backup my iTunes library files, I’ll always have access to my music files.
@@lohphat gotcha. Fairly similar to what I do, then, though I update my devices from my PC library directly. Helps that the only device I do this with is a phone.
I tried finding great new indie artists and streaming their music videos for people to discover, but the streams got blocked and taken down. I tried compiling the music videos into a playlist for people to discover and it has 300 views in 6 months. We used to discover great new music through local indie radio stations. I know individuals do make an effort to find this great new music on their own, but the growth curves on genuinely amazing groups is awful. There needs to be a way for people on mass to find and support the talent. We're losing a whole generation right now.
I feel comfortable saying this without Spotify I'd go to piracy and it would probably be better for the artists. (To the extent that at least it's clear people are being screwed)
fantastic analysis, and loved the quick punchy pacing. i'll never get the image of musicians being ground up as a resource to pour into the fuel tanks of spotify out of my head now... the system does sound like an unsustainable form of resource extraction
before clicking: oh boy! i can't wait to hate spotify more
after watching: thank you benn jordan it is now my mission to dismantle modern capitalism
Wow, thanks for this video. I am going to check out band camp. I remember how excited I was to go to the used cd store back in the day to try to find new punk bands I could get into, this'll be like that, but way easier :)
Nice vid! Think i love these social commentary and music industry essays more than the actual gear reviews. Sharing these insights gives us a lot more food for thought about what really matters to us (both individually and as a whole), and prompts us think how we can possibly change these insensitive, self-serving industries, or ourselves for the better.
The reason for the payment per stream going down is probably due to the number of paid users growing slower than the total users. Naturally the number of streams played in total goes up (because the *whole* userbase keeps growing), but the incoming money does not grow at similar pace.
10:41 is equivalent to asking someone in the early 1900's, "Why dont you just get your kerosene from somewhere other than standard oil".
As a music producer I have come to the conclusion that the music industry is not shaped by the music or their creators but rather by third party companies trying to profit off their work.
being a artist is no longer how good your music sounds its all about your branding, Image and relevance which really makes things hard for those who just went into creating music as a passion
I have spent 3 years making music and till now I still haven't found the formula to success as there are too many variables to tackle
musician as influencer primarily and maker of music secondarily used to be just for the big glamorous top tier artists. It's gotten even worse in the social media age where behaving like this is the only thing that gets you out there on IG, TikTok, etc. At least Spotify and RUclips will route people to you based on your music and not just creating controversy, selling your lifestyle, etc.
" the music industry is not shaped by the music or their creators but rather by third party companies"
been that way since industry was added to music
Really cogent, helpful, informative breakdown of the facts, your experiences, and the experience of too many others, as well as your thoughtful analysis articulating the problem. I sincerely appreciate the time and research you put into your videos, this one being no exception.