The other issue with the payment only after 1000 streams is that it's a rolling 12 months, so you could hit it this year but not any year after that. They will stop paying you if you fall out of the 12 month threshold. My issue with this is that over years I've made hundreds of tracks, and hundreds of tracks that were previously earning a couple of dollars here and there will stop earning, so it's a punishment for having an extensive back catalogue, even though we made those tracks to increase our revenue earning catalogue.
Totally true! I completely did not connect those dots. I do know part of the streaming strategy was quantity, but you're right, if they aren't crossing 1000 then that no longer works. Thanks for sharing! Going to pin this one so others see it.
That's a very good point...the lifeblood of the internet traditionally, but increasingly less so, is the long tail. Algorithms like Spotify's or RUclips's is already biased to make something popular even more so, and bury what isn't. So.....while for an individual artist who makes a few dollars X 100 tracks, this is a pay cut, the FAR worse problem is systemic: it places yet more downward pressure on unknown/rising artists, cult favorites, special interest genres, etc. and more upward lift on what everybody already likes. It's tilting the balance even more in an unhealthy direction it was already heading.
I agree with you! The biz is too focused on Top Most Popular only, let's get rid of all else and that makes the minority more discriminated against. How many people are listening to a little known Turkish pop artist living in Austria? How many people are listening to Messianic Jewish music? They don't care. All they care about is this Ed Sheeran, Dave Grohls, Metallica, etc? Is this Taylor Swift? It becomes a an algorithm to pay the rich and not the poor musicians who work just as hard, but just happen to be apart of the minority nitch.
The paradigm would have to shift from viewing Spotify and other streaming platforms as simply marketing tools and not as measures of success. That said, Spotify and others should certainly be paying artists more, unfortunately, we have the record labels to blame for those shitty deals.
It’s crazy how many people I talk to now that describe Spotify as a marketing tool. Re: the label deals… they were so desperate for something to save them. I worked at a label at that time and they felt they were at the tipping point of digital downloads ending. That pre-IPO equity probably didn’t hurt their opinion of the deals either.😂
if think are you missing the point. spotify looks more like a pyramid scheme. all ad revenue is put in to a pot and you only get a small portion of that, no matter how many listener you engage the major labels will take most of the money YOUR music generated and this will not change because the major labels is also the biggest shareholder of spotify. you are better of not releasing music on spotify, in fact if you can convince just one guy to buy your cd it will make more money than spotify streaming, that's how twisted this is.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that this is theft. When we uploaded our music to Spotify if we were due just 1$, it was ours and the music we created had earned it. They suddenly decide to steal that one dollar and do what they like with it - use it to curry favour with the record companies, etc. It's out and out theft, it's dishonest and it stinks to high heaven. They should make it very easy to remove our music from their platform without affecting our streams generated by other companies.
I'm sure all of this was spelled out before uploading your music, or else you'd have a court case with evidence. Having a right to upload music to their platform doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they want with it. If you didn't negotiate a contract and instead just agreed to everything and then expected the money to roll in then that was your first mistake. The story of musicians being taken advantage of is as old as the industry itself.
Hi Jacob, Thank you for your reply to my comment. Unfortunately, you're more than likely right. There are certain people in the world whose only pleasure in life is to grasp as much money as they can. Their cupidity knows no bounds. They usually end up owning large companies and worldwide banks. They control the world by manipulating currencies and creaming off the wealth created by the ordinary people who work for a living. Still not satisfied with all they have grasped at other's expense, they arrange 'Business Meetings' to see how they can squeeze every last penny out of the hands of people who already have very little. Spotify's latest business model is a prime example of this. Kind regards, Jim.@@JacobSnover
@@JacobSnover Hi Jacob, I posted a reply to your comment (regarding my first comment to which you replied) Unfortunately, it seems to have gone missing. I wondered if you had the opportunity to see it before it did. I assume you were correct when you said such things would be part of their terms and conditions, but who reads these apart from the legal people who produce them? however these documents are worded though, does not give anybody or any company the right to steal. If somebody forewarns another person that they are going to steal from them, that does not legalise the subsequent theft. They are still breaking the law. If you did not see my previous reply to your comment I have a copy. Let me know if you want to see it and I will repost it. Best wishes, Jim.
@@MichaelJamesWood I totally agree Michael. What Spotify have done is THEFT. They have stooped so low as to STEAL the few pennies we have EARNED with the use of our creativity. Some people, however few, liked our songs enough to listen to them, this generated a small amount of revenue WHICH WAS EARNED BY OUR EFFORTS AND WAS OWED TO US. Spotify saw that if they STOLE these small amounts of money from each of us small earners, then that STOLEN money would add up to a huge amount and they could keep that STOLEN money and use it as they saw fit. It's out and out THEFT, just as in the old story about the banker who steals a penny from every account and hopes nobody notices.
I was a professional musician for 20 years and had to play gigs and teach throughout the week, and have a 2nd job. Musicians were not making much of album sales before Spotify, so I don't think much has changed. The difference to me is that Spotify made it easier to distribute music, and therefore musicians think it's easier to get big through Spotify. Fact is that there are a lot of different musicians in the world and MOST will not be able to make a career as a musician. That's why the music business has more to do with business than music, and even though I'm a software engineer now, I still play the drums everyday because I love to play the drums, not because I'm getting paid to play the drums.
It's not a matter of obsessing over metrics or feeling good or bad, that's a whole other story, it's a matter of getting paid for people who listened to your track. If i go to a bar and drink 999 beers but won't pay because it's under a threshold I just made up, the bar owner won't feel bad or underappreciated, he will just make me pay or call the cops. The same goes for an employee's paycheck being cut, and blaming him for not working enough. Let's put things straight and tell it how it is. If they do not want noise tracks, they should just say so, and develop a control system to filter them out, given the whole industry is just a small bunch of groups owning each other, incl. distributors. If they are concerned about small payments, no one is preventing them from raising the crappy royalty per stream they currently pay.
this metaphor is a bit off. when i go to a bar, im the person listenting to the stream, the bar is spotify, and the drinks are the music.. now the bar will buy drinks that bring people to the bar.. sometimes they will actually advertise drinks, which the drinks PAY for those advertisements.. if the drinks are good they wil become more popular at the bar.. but of the drinks are bad the bar will stop carrying it TO MAKE SPACE FOR OTER DRINKS "WITH POTENTIAL".. even if the drinks spend money to advertise, the bay will discontinue because not enough people are buying the drinks.. now SOMETIMES drinks are sold thru the bar ON CONSIGNMENT.. meaning they will actually pay for the drinks if enough drinks are sold in a time period.. is is done to give lesser known drinks a shot at being in a popular bar.. but if the drinks suck and DONT SELL, then that will have to be chalked as a loss.. the bar dont owe anything.. but people are free to sell on the street
Come back to the real world from those convoluted dreams. Try running a bar that way and see how it goes. There should be no advertisements and no free accounts at all, just a free 5-minute preview over a week period. That, if Spotify and other streaming platforms were actual business, but they are not. Even the subscription fees are totally unrealistic. In fact, they hardly make profits. This and all the fake fight against bot streams if just a move to get rid as much as possible of the small fish. Bots are used by labels, just like payola and other tactics in the old days. If the fight were real, they would have got rid of those years ago filtering sign ups en masse, just like huge ticket sales for concerts in a few minutes from a single buyer. @@wallacewallets7557
I don't mind them withholding payment from those not hitting 1000 streams, but that money should go on to advertising new artists instead of putting it into pocket of already successful artists. Artists already have a difficult time getting fans, promoting music. taking that revenue from new artists is taking away future fans.
The music industry is a sick joke. Don't expect anything but exploitation and misery from it. Just create because you want to and don't expect anything. This is the reality we are being forged to endure. Why shouldn't we be upset about it? I guess it's nothing new - corporate greed.
The philosophy "Just create because you want to and don't expect anything" is all well and good when what you create is garbage. But if it's good, then the industry becomes a scary monster.
They also shadowban in accorance with all other platforms, heading the command from the Party. Being at zero makes the proof easy: I have friends play. Their plays never count in my statistics. Now, this 1000 streams threshold complements this perfectly. My music is instrumental except one collaboration for a prayer song. We are wiped out from the face of the Earth.
Never unserstood how any artist just willingly gave up their own art to a supplier without any form of any written and signed contract for litterally 0 dollars. They can litterally share your hard work not pay you anything and you stand by and watch getting taken advantage of. I never understood any artist who would willing do that. You giving up your art for free in hopes of getting any form of real re-compensation never made any sense to me. All you have to do is sell your art to your really small audience all it takes is 10 people from 100 followers to give you one dollar, for your art to make something of yourself, and work at that diligently over years and stick with that. That will in the end still make you more money then any streaming platform will ever do for you...at 10.000 followers that will make you 10.000 per week, month or year...Any independent artist can do that, it is a marathon not a sprint...All you have to do is start doing that today of course, yesterday even better, more over of course if you already have been doing that for the past couple of years. Don't give your art to anyone for free, you are worth way more then that. Be blessed.
The “1000 True Fans Philosophy”. Finding the people who are your diehard fans will always outweigh anything you’d get from passive consumption of your art. All great points! Thanks for sharing.
Its a shame that the Bad Apples are ruining it for the Genuine Musicians I create my Music because I love Music and Hope it Blesses people, no more. I dont put any reliance on RUclips either, and I have started uploads. Same as SoundCloud, as none of my Tunes get many views. I discovered a New Artist, how is incredible, and even she dosnt get many views. Whats the Answer? Is it, that if we don't pay then our music is lost in the white noise of traffic?
the way people DONT understand the concept is tragic.. historically the ARTIST made their money from live performances and then merch.. airplay (now "streaming" and physical sales (now "downloads" and "streaming pat 150 plays") went to the record company to RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENT.. the record company FRONTED the money and was repaid from the airplay and physical sales (which wasnt a lot to begin with).. a platinum artist at the label made it possible for the label to service the OTHER ARTISTS as well as cover operating expenses.. but now that the artist has to play "record exec" they finallysee the services record companies REALLY provided and its overwhelming to them.. so instead of focusing energy on PERFORMING they rather cry and complain about the payout from streaming.. just understand, streaming is the ADVERTISEMENT OF YOUR BRAND.. think of that whole process as part of the ARTIST'S INVESTMENT in their own brand.. the more popular the artist gets from streaming, the more opportunities they get to perform somewhere.. in turn, when streaming does increase, that revenue can then offset some of the costs of the record label (payments for trademarks, copyrights, travel per diem, etc) YOU DONT GET RICH FROM STREAMING!!!! YOU GET RICH FROM PERFORMING AND MARKETING YOUR BRAND!!!!
Streaming really has become a form of marketing. I'm sure some people will read this and not agree, but you're spot on with everything here. It's a good reminder that most artists with deals back in the day never recouped their advances and made money elsewhere. The same way they need to now. It's about navigating the entire ecosystem and finding how you can generate multiple streams of income that work together to support your music.
The MLC is suing Spotify. Only good can come from that. These money-only guys (like Downtown Music, Songtrust, etc.) take not only the MONEY, but all the FUN out of trying to get your music heard. The truth is you have to play live and if exposure is gained through RUclips, Spotify, etc., then you might make a buck off the gigs but it will not come from streaming. I'd like to hear someone's opinion who has a billion steams tell us how much money that actually comes out to in the end...probably 300 bucks.
I saw that lawsuit. Interested to see how that pans out. This video was from before Daniel Ek said the cost of making content is "near zero"... clearly out of touch with how music is made. People's time alone is worth more than they are getting paid, not to mention actual costs. I think we're heading towards a change in the next few years. The tides are turning in public opinion (at last among music makers). I'll be curious to see what the landscape looks like in two years. And don't get me started on Songtrust 🤮
Interesting take on the issue. My real frustration is that I have tracks that have much more than 1k streams already but I won’t get any money for them because they don’t have 1k streams in this calendar year!! This basically devalues my back catalogue to zero!! This cannot be right! (rant over!!)😂👍
Yeah this is for sure a problem. It would be a better system if it was like RUclips. Once a track is monetized it's monetized. The current way definitely screws the back catalog for so many people. It kind of kills the quantity game that let so many artists start to actually make money.
thanks for keeping us up-to-date on what's happening...also, good insight about committing yourself to the process, artists so easily lose sight of why they do what they do once they bring it into the public arena. best of luck with the channel...i subscribed. looking forward to the next one...
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the sub! My goal is to share some of the concepts that have helped me reshape my career. They might not click with everybody, but I hope the people that they do resonate with find them. If you're an audio podcast person there is a large back catalog of stuff there (working it's way to YT shortly though).
@@progressionspod wouldn't it just be easier to give the artist $1 a listen so say if a band like Motley Crue has millions of monthly listeners wouldn't it just be easier to do that.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. I really want more artists and creators to embrace the whole journey and not just the metrics because that’s what we signed up for.
I think the hypocrisy is strong in this Video of yours. :/ You say you are all against devaluing the small Artists and yet, you feel like you have the high ground on saying how many hours someone has to put into a product, for it to deserve Payment. If more people listen to a 3-minute white noise track than they do to your 3-minute Pop song, that's your fault. Art is worth nothing. It actually only is worth, what people are willing to pay for it. Doesn't matter if you're only pushing a bucket of red color on a canvas, which takes a second to do. The value of it lies in the willingness of people paying for it. As a musician, you are in the “Entertainment” Sector. ALL you do is worth nothing, if people don't consume your product. Stop whining about it. People don't have to value your work on tiny shit bit. ;) Thanks
I think I agree with that, but you're conflating art with entertainment. I'm not sure I want to elide the difference between them - although I can imagine trying to maintain a coherent distinction would be quite difficult.
I think you're confused about the difference between "price" and "value". Plus, you have the noise thing totally backward. It's not that someone should spend hours and hours on something to deserve payment...nor is it any artist's fault that more people listen to a white noise track than their song. Neither of those comparisons is the issue at all. The issue you're missing is, that noise tracks are easy to churn out by the dozens, and spam all over the streaming world...these are mostly posted by "grey hat" people, who take advantage of and gradually eff up the algorithm for everyone else. And anyway, how many of those listener's paid anything at all?? Your mental model of value, whether perceived or intrinsic, is highly skewed.
I would be curious what is going to happen to AI generated music. First Spotify banned it then decided not to ban. I think AI will eventually become its own genre. What will happen when you can't tell the difference between an AI generated song and one made by a human? 🤖
It will just sound like a bland amalgamation of everything it has been trained on, so, you know... like bad generic music you hear in insurance commercials. Stupid people will like it, but then stupid people have always like bland, regurgitated stuff. Generative models, by definition, cannot be truly creative.
@@c420_nights When I hear this I assume people think they are more creative then what they are. I taught percussion, and if I had a student that loved Green Day guess what the music they wrote sounded like? It sounded like Green Day, because if you've heard ANY music before trying to create your own then you are now influenced. If any musicians just stumbled across a music style without hearing it before i'd be very amazed. Most if not all music is a mixture of sounds/genres.
@@JacobSnover Obviously everyone bears their influences. I once wrote a song and later realized that it was "Rock 'n Roll High School", note for note. You are talking about students, after all. As you progress you learn to incorporate your influences and synthesize them through the prism of your own style and unique voice. Also, plenty of great art has been created by people trying to copy something and failing in weird ways.
I'll play airdrums. I playd drum since I was a kid, but I play air drums Now I'm never gonna set my Drum set set up again. This is cutting edge s*** I have Tom's that face each other. 1's right above the other one. So when I drum down n Tom upstrokes Next tom The other Tom virtual virtual gonna be crazy. My 16th notes just went to 32nd notes. I guess his way you'd look at that. I'm prices fast. And I just started this s*** My band would f****** flip out if I was still in it. You don't wanna Bing your drum set, you sure yep.
1000 streams in a year is $4 (and that's only if streamed in territories with good economies). If you were only earning $4 a year, was it your career anyway?
if you only got 800 streams on 30 tracks a year is 24000 streams which is 96$. that can at leasts cover the distribution cost. now none of tracks get royalties. what if you have a large catalog of songs that don’t all generate 1000 streams but generate close to that. it’s still suboptimal
@@naajihylton1337 well that's cost to you. Does it even cover server costs? No. Regardless my sentiment still stands. That's a very strange hypothetical, 30 tracks released on a music brand that can't break 1k in 12 months??? How? If that's a real situation then the artist has much much bigger problems than losing $100 a year! You could make $100 just cutting down on coffee purchases 🤣. If no one's listening to the music after trying 30 times I'm not sure what to tell you.
@@Bthelick That sounds like a good point on the surface, but it's actually not a clear take. There are in fact people who make an important chunk of their income off of a large back catalog, and this change is a big paycut for them. That may not be their entire living, but they are certainly doing other things alongside. You sound like you are locked in the "real artists make it big" mindset. There are many kinds of real music career, and success relies on business savvy plus taking advantage of multiple income streams....not blowing up. And, what's all about the coffee tip?? Really silly suggestion. You don't make money in the music industry by not buying something entirely unrelated. False equation there.
@@j3ffn4v4rr0 Are you speaking from experience here? Or is this hypothetical? Because trust me I'm not of the 'make it big from hits ' mindset at all. I operate independently outside of the major label industry as a purely organic brand and this has been my sole income for 15 years. I've never been 'famous' / 'made it big' nor do I seek to. I have hundreds of songs out there, completely unpromoted, and a chunk of the lower performing ones being cut off is really not a big deal in the scheme of things. I'm not rich by any means but between the other stores, publishing royalties and all the other music income it's not significant, (also in theory you'll earn some back as the royalty rates for tracks over threshold will go up) and if $100 was significant then cutting my coffee intact would be EXACTLY the kind of thing i would do as making a living as a musician absolutely requires you to be thrifty!.
I don't understand the rationalizing of Spotify stealing money from the smallest artists. I have 60 songs on Spotify. Imagine that I make $2 per song over a year. That's $120. I would get none of it, because you need 1000 streams per song. Even if I only earn $10, it's my $10. If someone took ten dollars from your wallet, I bet you'd care. People would want to blame me for not doing marketing, but it's a hobby for me. That doesn't mean I don't deserve some of the money it earns for Spotify.
The other issue with the payment only after 1000 streams is that it's a rolling 12 months, so you could hit it this year but not any year after that. They will stop paying you if you fall out of the 12 month threshold. My issue with this is that over years I've made hundreds of tracks, and hundreds of tracks that were previously earning a couple of dollars here and there will stop earning, so it's a punishment for having an extensive back catalogue, even though we made those tracks to increase our revenue earning catalogue.
Totally true! I completely did not connect those dots. I do know part of the streaming strategy was quantity, but you're right, if they aren't crossing 1000 then that no longer works. Thanks for sharing! Going to pin this one so others see it.
That's a very good point...the lifeblood of the internet traditionally, but increasingly less so, is the long tail. Algorithms like Spotify's or RUclips's is already biased to make something popular even more so, and bury what isn't. So.....while for an individual artist who makes a few dollars X 100 tracks, this is a pay cut, the FAR worse problem is systemic: it places yet more downward pressure on unknown/rising artists, cult favorites, special interest genres, etc. and more upward lift on what everybody already likes. It's tilting the balance even more in an unhealthy direction it was already heading.
I agree with you! The biz is too focused on Top Most Popular only, let's get rid of all else and that makes the minority more discriminated against. How many people are listening to a little known Turkish pop artist living in Austria? How many people are listening to Messianic Jewish music? They don't care. All they care about is this Ed Sheeran, Dave Grohls, Metallica, etc? Is this Taylor Swift? It becomes a an algorithm to pay the rich and not the poor musicians who work just as hard, but just happen to be apart of the minority nitch.
Exactly.
Totally agree with you!👍
The paradigm would have to shift from viewing Spotify and other streaming platforms as simply marketing tools and not as measures of success. That said, Spotify and others should certainly be paying artists more, unfortunately, we have the record labels to blame for those shitty deals.
It’s crazy how many people I talk to now that describe Spotify as a marketing tool.
Re: the label deals… they were so desperate for something to save them. I worked at a label at that time and they felt they were at the tipping point of digital downloads ending. That pre-IPO equity probably didn’t hurt their opinion of the deals either.😂
if think are you missing the point. spotify looks more like a pyramid scheme. all ad revenue is put in to a pot and you only get a small portion of that, no matter how many listener you engage the major labels will take most of the money YOUR music generated and this will not change because the major labels is also the biggest shareholder of spotify. you are better of not releasing music on spotify, in fact if you can convince just one guy to buy your cd it will make more money than spotify streaming, that's how twisted this is.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that this is theft. When we uploaded our music to Spotify if we were due just 1$, it was ours and the music we created had earned it. They suddenly decide to steal that one dollar and do what they like with it - use it to curry favour with the record companies, etc. It's out and out theft, it's dishonest and it stinks to high heaven. They should make it very easy to remove our music from their platform without affecting our streams generated by other companies.
I'm sure all of this was spelled out before uploading your music, or else you'd have a court case with evidence. Having a right to upload music to their platform doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they want with it. If you didn't negotiate a contract and instead just agreed to everything and then expected the money to roll in then that was your first mistake. The story of musicians being taken advantage of is as old as the industry itself.
Hi Jacob, Thank you for your reply to my comment. Unfortunately, you're more than likely right. There are certain people in the world whose only pleasure in life is to grasp as much money as they can. Their cupidity knows no bounds. They usually end up owning large companies and worldwide banks. They control the world by manipulating currencies and creaming off the wealth created by the ordinary people who work for a living. Still not satisfied with all they have grasped at other's expense, they arrange 'Business Meetings' to see how they can squeeze every last penny out of the hands of people who already have very little. Spotify's latest business model is a prime example of this. Kind regards, Jim.@@JacobSnover
I agree. Anything over 99 cents should be deposited in musicians' accounts monthly. Anyone who sticks up for their practice has a stick up their ass.
@@JacobSnover Hi Jacob, I posted a reply to your comment (regarding my first comment to which you replied) Unfortunately, it seems to have gone missing. I wondered if you had the opportunity to see it before it did. I assume you were correct when you said such things would be part of their terms and conditions, but who reads these apart from the legal people who produce them? however these documents are worded though, does not give anybody or any company the right to steal. If somebody forewarns another person that they are going to steal from them, that does not legalise the subsequent theft. They are still breaking the law.
If you did not see my previous reply to your comment I have a copy. Let me know if you want to see it and I will repost it. Best wishes, Jim.
@@MichaelJamesWood I totally agree Michael. What Spotify have done is THEFT. They have stooped so low as to STEAL the few pennies we have EARNED with the use of our creativity.
Some people, however few, liked our songs enough to listen to them, this generated a small amount of revenue WHICH WAS EARNED BY OUR EFFORTS AND WAS OWED TO US.
Spotify saw that if they STOLE these small amounts of money from each of us small earners, then that STOLEN money would add up to a huge amount and they could keep that STOLEN money and use it as they saw fit.
It's out and out THEFT, just as in the old story about the banker who steals a penny from every account and hopes nobody notices.
I was a professional musician for 20 years and had to play gigs and teach throughout the week, and have a 2nd job. Musicians were not making much of album sales before Spotify, so I don't think much has changed. The difference to me is that Spotify made it easier to distribute music, and therefore musicians think it's easier to get big through Spotify. Fact is that there are a lot of different musicians in the world and MOST will not be able to make a career as a musician. That's why the music business has more to do with business than music, and even though I'm a software engineer now, I still play the drums everyday because I love to play the drums, not because I'm getting paid to play the drums.
RUclips music pays way more than Spotify, don’t understand why all this attention to Spotify
It's not a matter of obsessing over metrics or feeling good or bad, that's a whole other story, it's a matter of getting paid for people who listened to your track. If i go to a bar and drink 999 beers but won't pay because it's under a threshold I just made up, the bar owner won't feel bad or underappreciated, he will just make me pay or call the cops. The same goes for an employee's paycheck being cut, and blaming him for not working enough. Let's put things straight and tell it how it is.
If they do not want noise tracks, they should just say so, and develop a control system to filter them out, given the whole industry is just a small bunch of groups owning each other, incl. distributors. If they are concerned about small payments, no one is preventing them from raising the crappy royalty per stream they currently pay.
Well said
Thanks. Well, it is quite obvious to me and everyone with open eyes and a brain ;)@@Hourstone
this metaphor is a bit off. when i go to a bar, im the person listenting to the stream, the bar is spotify, and the drinks are the music..
now the bar will buy drinks that bring people to the bar.. sometimes they will actually advertise drinks, which the drinks PAY for those advertisements.. if the drinks are good they wil become more popular at the bar.. but of the drinks are bad the bar will stop carrying it TO MAKE SPACE FOR OTER DRINKS "WITH POTENTIAL".. even if the drinks spend money to advertise, the bay will discontinue because not enough people are buying the drinks..
now SOMETIMES drinks are sold thru the bar ON CONSIGNMENT.. meaning they will actually pay for the drinks if enough drinks are sold in a time period.. is is done to give lesser known drinks a shot at being in a popular bar.. but if the drinks suck and DONT SELL, then that will have to be chalked as a loss.. the bar dont owe anything..
but people are free to sell on the street
Come back to the real world from those convoluted dreams. Try running a bar that way and see how it goes. There should be no advertisements and no free accounts at all, just a free 5-minute preview over a week period. That, if Spotify and other streaming platforms were actual business, but they are not. Even the subscription fees are totally unrealistic. In fact, they hardly make profits.
This and all the fake fight against bot streams if just a move to get rid as much as possible of the small fish.
Bots are used by labels, just like payola and other tactics in the old days. If the fight were real, they would have got rid of those years ago filtering sign ups en masse, just like huge ticket sales for concerts in a few minutes from a single buyer.
@@wallacewallets7557
I don't mind them withholding payment from those not hitting 1000 streams, but that money should go on to advertising new artists instead of putting it into pocket of already successful artists. Artists already have a difficult time getting fans, promoting music. taking that revenue from new artists is taking away future fans.
Spotify is a horrible company, just like Facebook. They pay so much money to big music copyright owners but don’t care about independent artists.
The music industry is a sick joke. Don't expect anything but exploitation and misery from it. Just create because you want to and don't expect anything. This is the reality we are being forged to endure. Why shouldn't we be upset about it? I guess it's nothing new - corporate greed.
The philosophy "Just create because you want to and don't expect anything" is all well and good when what you create is garbage. But if it's good, then the industry becomes a scary monster.
They also shadowban in accorance with all other platforms, heading the command from the Party. Being at zero makes the proof easy: I have friends play. Their plays never count in my statistics. Now, this 1000 streams threshold complements this perfectly. My music is instrumental except one collaboration for a prayer song. We are wiped out from the face of the Earth.
I've said from day one: Fuck Spotify and Fuck streaming altogether ‼🤬
AGREED
I'd be fine just having my music up there for free, but them making money from us, no.
If I were putting it out for free it wouldn't be on Spotify.
@@stephenr2434 that's the truth.
spotify sucks streaming sucks
Streaming does suck. Bandcamp and direct sales is the way to go.
Time to get off streaming services.
Do you find Band camp or other direct outlets work a lot better for your releases?
Never unserstood how any artist just willingly gave up their own art to a supplier without any form of any written and signed contract for litterally 0 dollars.
They can litterally share your hard work not pay you anything and you stand by and watch getting taken advantage of.
I never understood any artist who would willing do that. You giving up your art for free in hopes of getting any form of real re-compensation never made any sense to me.
All you have to do is sell your art to your really small audience all it takes is 10 people from 100 followers to give you one dollar, for your art to make something of yourself, and work at that diligently over years and stick with that. That will in the end still make you more money then any streaming platform will ever do for you...at 10.000 followers that will make you 10.000 per week, month or year...Any independent artist can do that, it is a marathon not a sprint...All you have to do is start doing that today of course, yesterday even better, more over of course if you already have been doing that for the past couple of years. Don't give your art to anyone for free, you are worth way more then that. Be blessed.
The “1000 True Fans Philosophy”. Finding the people who are your diehard fans will always outweigh anything you’d get from passive consumption of your art. All great points! Thanks for sharing.
@@progressionspod You are more the welcome, keep on grinding that wheel to get your diamond in the rough to the shining gem it will eventually become.
these changes are good
In other words spotify doest like it when non-music sounds get more streams than artist? 😂
As I interpret the scene, far most earn nothing from their music...
I really like this. Your take on the new policies are informative, non conspiratoric (if thats even a word) and refreshing. Thanks
Its a shame that the Bad Apples are ruining it for the Genuine Musicians
I create my Music because I love Music and Hope it Blesses people, no more.
I dont put any reliance on RUclips either, and I have started uploads.
Same as SoundCloud, as none of my Tunes get many views.
I discovered a New Artist, how is incredible, and even she dosnt get many views.
Whats the Answer?
Is it, that if we don't pay then our music is lost in the white noise of traffic?
Time to sell Vinyl!
Truth!
Wait, a minimum length of 2 minutes, what about You Suffer by Napalm Death?
Hey, just wanted to say that if you like New Age-self-help platitudes and hopey-wishy bullshit then this video is definitely for you
Using days or weeks on a track... I have tracks that to me a year to make, think that goes for many artists
Thanks for your★ views!
the way people DONT understand the concept is tragic.. historically the ARTIST made their money from live performances and then merch.. airplay (now "streaming" and physical sales (now "downloads" and "streaming pat 150 plays") went to the record company to RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENT.. the record company FRONTED the money and was repaid from the airplay and physical sales (which wasnt a lot to begin with).. a platinum artist at the label made it possible for the label to service the OTHER ARTISTS as well as cover operating expenses..
but now that the artist has to play "record exec" they finallysee the services record companies REALLY provided and its overwhelming to them.. so instead of focusing energy on PERFORMING they rather cry and complain about the payout from streaming.. just understand, streaming is the ADVERTISEMENT OF YOUR BRAND.. think of that whole process as part of the ARTIST'S INVESTMENT in their own brand.. the more popular the artist gets from streaming, the more opportunities they get to perform somewhere.. in turn, when streaming does increase, that revenue can then offset some of the costs of the record label (payments for trademarks, copyrights, travel per diem, etc)
YOU DONT GET RICH FROM STREAMING!!!! YOU GET RICH FROM PERFORMING AND MARKETING YOUR BRAND!!!!
Streaming really has become a form of marketing. I'm sure some people will read this and not agree, but you're spot on with everything here. It's a good reminder that most artists with deals back in the day never recouped their advances and made money elsewhere. The same way they need to now. It's about navigating the entire ecosystem and finding how you can generate multiple streams of income that work together to support your music.
The MLC is suing Spotify. Only good can come from that. These money-only guys (like Downtown Music, Songtrust, etc.) take not only the MONEY, but all the FUN out of trying to get your music heard. The truth is you have to play live and if exposure is gained through RUclips, Spotify, etc., then you might make a buck off the gigs but it will not come from streaming. I'd like to hear someone's opinion who has a billion steams tell us how much money that actually comes out to in the end...probably 300 bucks.
I saw that lawsuit. Interested to see how that pans out. This video was from before Daniel Ek said the cost of making content is "near zero"... clearly out of touch with how music is made. People's time alone is worth more than they are getting paid, not to mention actual costs. I think we're heading towards a change in the next few years. The tides are turning in public opinion (at last among music makers). I'll be curious to see what the landscape looks like in two years. And don't get me started on Songtrust 🤮
Interesting video, good analysis. Subscribed.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
I canceled my Spotify. Apple Music doesn't seem to have all the issues with bots that Spotify does.
And it sounds better! Which is big for me.
The bottom line is that if
the problem is that it makes us honest artists compete with field recordings and bot farms
Cool
This is really good advice! Thank you!
Thanks! Glad it resonated with you!
Well said!
Thanks!
Interesting take on the issue. My real frustration is that I have tracks that have much more than 1k streams already but I won’t get any money for them because they don’t have 1k streams in this calendar year!! This basically devalues my back catalogue to zero!! This cannot be right! (rant over!!)😂👍
Yeah this is for sure a problem. It would be a better system if it was like RUclips. Once a track is monetized it's monetized. The current way definitely screws the back catalog for so many people. It kind of kills the quantity game that let so many artists start to actually make money.
@@progressionspod Absolutely!!👍
If Potify owe you money they have to pay it to you. It is illegal to give your payment to somebody else.
thanks for keeping us up-to-date on what's happening...also, good insight about committing yourself to the process, artists so easily lose sight of why they do what they do once they bring it into the public arena. best of luck with the channel...i subscribed. looking forward to the next one...
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for the sub! My goal is to share some of the concepts that have helped me reshape my career. They might not click with everybody, but I hope the people that they do resonate with find them.
If you're an audio podcast person there is a large back catalog of stuff there (working it's way to YT shortly though).
@@progressionspod i will check that out and follow you there ;) thanks
@@progressionspod wouldn't it just be easier to give the artist $1 a listen so say if a band like Motley Crue has millions of monthly listeners wouldn't it just be easier to do that.
So simple but works every time
This is great advice for any creative who needs to take the leap towards self promotion.
Thank you for the story we need to telling ourselves, the best part
Thanks! Glad it resonated with you!
Good Job. Great info that goes beyond the Spotify stuff. YYYeeeeeaaah
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. I really want more artists and creators to embrace the whole journey and not just the metrics because that’s what we signed up for.
Spotiful
I think the hypocrisy is strong in this Video of yours. :/ You say you are all against devaluing the small Artists and yet, you feel like you have the high ground on saying how many hours someone has to put into a product, for it to deserve Payment. If more people listen to a 3-minute white noise track than they do to your 3-minute Pop song, that's your fault. Art is worth nothing. It actually only is worth, what people are willing to pay for it. Doesn't matter if you're only pushing a bucket of red color on a canvas, which takes a second to do. The value of it lies in the willingness of people paying for it.
As a musician, you are in the “Entertainment” Sector. ALL you do is worth nothing, if people don't consume your product. Stop whining about it. People don't have to value your work on tiny shit bit. ;) Thanks
I think I agree with that, but you're conflating art with entertainment. I'm not sure I want to elide the difference between them - although I can imagine trying to maintain a coherent distinction would be quite difficult.
I think you're confused about the difference between "price" and "value". Plus, you have the noise thing totally backward. It's not that someone should spend hours and hours on something to deserve payment...nor is it any artist's fault that more people listen to a white noise track than their song. Neither of those comparisons is the issue at all. The issue you're missing is, that noise tracks are easy to churn out by the dozens, and spam all over the streaming world...these are mostly posted by "grey hat" people, who take advantage of and gradually eff up the algorithm for everyone else. And anyway, how many of those listener's paid anything at all?? Your mental model of value, whether perceived or intrinsic, is highly skewed.
I already had man I subbed you Goodd creator
Appreciate it!
5:02 “Artists sharing their urine streams”?? - Oh, year-end streams! (Diction please!)
I would be curious what is going to happen to AI generated music. First Spotify banned it then decided not to ban. I think AI will eventually become its own genre. What will happen when you can't tell the difference between an AI generated song and one made by a human? 🤖
That's actually a great question. That day will surely come. I'm going to go dig a guest to get into this with!
It will just sound like a bland amalgamation of everything it has been trained on, so, you know... like bad generic music you hear in insurance commercials. Stupid people will like it, but then stupid people have always like bland, regurgitated stuff. Generative models, by definition, cannot be truly creative.
Try to support live music more. Easy to know the difference if they're standing in front of you.
@@c420_nights When I hear this I assume people think they are more creative then what they are. I taught percussion, and if I had a student that loved Green Day guess what the music they wrote sounded like? It sounded like Green Day, because if you've heard ANY music before trying to create your own then you are now influenced. If any musicians just stumbled across a music style without hearing it before i'd be very amazed. Most if not all music is a mixture of sounds/genres.
@@JacobSnover Obviously everyone bears their influences. I once wrote a song and later realized that it was "Rock 'n Roll High School", note for note. You are talking about students, after all. As you progress you learn to incorporate your influences and synthesize them through the prism of your own style and unique voice. Also, plenty of great art has been created by people trying to copy something and failing in weird ways.
I'll play airdrums. I playd drum since I was a kid, but I play air drums Now I'm never gonna set my Drum set set up again. This is cutting edge s*** I have Tom's that face each other. 1's right above the other one. So when I drum down n Tom upstrokes Next tom The other Tom virtual virtual gonna be crazy. My 16th notes just went to 32nd notes. I guess his way you'd look at that. I'm prices fast. And I just started this s***
My band would f****** flip out if I was still in it. You don't wanna Bing your drum set, you sure yep.
Best take I've seen on this.
Thanks 🙏
Amazing video, it is a frustrsting news but it shouldn't affect how we look at our art!
Thanks! We all got into this industry because we love music, sometimes we get lost in the business. It's good to return to those making music roots.
1001 does indeed make me feel better than 999 😂 But that's the point right
1000 streams in a year is $4 (and that's only if streamed in territories with good economies). If you were only earning $4 a year, was it your career anyway?
if you only got 800 streams on 30 tracks a year is 24000 streams which is 96$. that can at leasts cover the distribution cost. now none of tracks get royalties. what if you have a large catalog of songs that don’t all generate 1000 streams but generate close to that. it’s still suboptimal
@@naajihylton1337 well that's cost to you. Does it even cover server costs? No.
Regardless my sentiment still stands.
That's a very strange hypothetical, 30 tracks released on a music brand that can't break 1k in 12 months??? How? If that's a real situation then the artist has much much bigger problems than losing $100 a year! You could make $100 just cutting down on coffee purchases 🤣. If no one's listening to the music after trying 30 times I'm not sure what to tell you.
@@Bthelick That sounds like a good point on the surface, but it's actually not a clear take. There are in fact people who make an important chunk of their income off of a large back catalog, and this change is a big paycut for them. That may not be their entire living, but they are certainly doing other things alongside. You sound like you are locked in the "real artists make it big" mindset. There are many kinds of real music career, and success relies on business savvy plus taking advantage of multiple income streams....not blowing up.
And, what's all about the coffee tip?? Really silly suggestion. You don't make money in the music industry by not buying something entirely unrelated. False equation there.
@@naajihylton1337 That's very true...check pinned comment.
@@j3ffn4v4rr0 Are you speaking from experience here? Or is this hypothetical?
Because trust me I'm not of the 'make it big from hits ' mindset at all. I operate independently outside of the major label industry as a purely organic brand and this has been my sole income for 15 years. I've never been 'famous' / 'made it big' nor do I seek to.
I have hundreds of songs out there, completely unpromoted, and a chunk of the lower performing ones being cut off is really not a big deal in the scheme of things.
I'm not rich by any means but between the other stores, publishing royalties and all the other music income it's not significant, (also in theory you'll earn some back as the royalty rates for tracks over threshold will go up) and if $100 was significant then cutting my coffee intact would be EXACTLY the kind of thing i would do as making a living as a musician absolutely requires you to be thrifty!.
Im good...I get like one play a week.
I don't understand the rationalizing of Spotify stealing money from the smallest artists. I have 60 songs on Spotify. Imagine that I make $2 per song over a year. That's $120. I would get none of it, because you need 1000 streams per song. Even if I only earn $10, it's my $10. If someone took ten dollars from your wallet, I bet you'd care. People would want to blame me for not doing marketing, but it's a hobby for me. That doesn't mean I don't deserve some of the money it earns for Spotify.
I agree. They can rationalize it however they want, but it's still a bad precedent for not paying artists.
fuck me pink spitify are now telling us what music is?