@@CalebPanda1it took me a while too don't worry! I just squinted my eyes and looked at the centre really hard and I could just make him out. Pretty hidden.
When they say something is 'generating' money that's purely for the benefit of their investors, the only people they care about keeping happy. The rest is plain old corporate doublespeak
This has been my biggest qualm with Spotify over the past 5+ years. Time and time again they brag about how they saved the music industry, revenue is up, the industry makes so much more- but if none of that money ever makes it to the actual musicians, then how has it saved anything? it seems more like you took the money i earned with my music to make and sell AI weapons to Lockheed (I still cant believe we let them get away with that)
@@claysmith8840 dawg i bet your favorite artist wouldnt be pulling in anywhere near as much money if apple music was left on its own to be a monopoly. and we're not gonna sit here and pretend bandcamp was the other option. melons fanbase thinks the whole world was upset when it got bad, even though literally no one except hardcore music nerds used it
@@jahterminatedlmao5473sounds like a skill issue. maybe if more people than just “hardcore music nerds” used Bandcamp the world would be a better place for artists.
@@claysmith8840 there are musicians who are billionaires now, and their number is growing. there are many more people in the music industry with hundreds of millions in assets. in other words, people with power. these are the people who should be leading the charge here, it's an industry pay-rate issue. making fans feel guitly for buying an openly sold completely legal product is bullshit.
@@jahterminatedlmao5473guess I'm a hardcore music nerd for wanting artists to be paid fairly and acting accordingly. I've earned hundreds times more through bandcamp sales than spotify streams even though the clicks are higher. Does it make me naive to wish the worse of the two to become better rather than the better to become worse?
I'm a small artist. Wanna know how much I've made from Spotify? $0.00. I haven't made enough money to be paid out by Spotify over the past year. And now with them introducing the new rule that an artist has to surpass 1,000 streams annually to even qualify for compensation, it might be a while before I even see any money. On the flipside, a couple album sales recently put money right in my pocket. Thank you to those who bought my music. Support the artist, buy their album if you like it, it goes way further than a stream ever will.
dawg if you thought you were gonna get any money from any platform with less than 1k monthly streams... idk what to say man. even youtube doesn't allow monetization until you meet such and such criteria. but hey with physical media making a comeback, there should be viable alternatives to streaming services soon
@@jahterminatedlmao5473 There's money on my distrokid account, just not enough to pay out. I wasn't expecting more money, I know that streaming is a bad deal for artists. One $10 album sale is the equivalent of 5,000 streams, of course before Apple, Bandcamp, or whoever takes their cut. If just 1% of 5,000 people bought an album, that's $500. While RUclips has a threshold for their partner program, uploading music through a distribution service gets automatically monetized. I was uploading music to RUclips on a different channel back when they first opened up the monetization to everyone, that was pretty cool. I can't say I agree with them raising the requirements for monetization, but this is also the company that slapped ads on all unmonetized videos and just take the money for themselves, so RUclips isn't exactly who I'd wanna compete with as a platform.
@@chapstixxx-n3s living sustainably off of 20k people consuming your content is gonna be impossible on any platform, music or otherwise. taking these grievances seriously is easier when someone with over 150K plus monthly listeners is making less than 2K a month. when random indie artist with marginal streams frankly isnt improving or bringing anything of substance money wise to the platform, theres obviously no incentive to pay them what theyre asking for
Anthony, as someone who earns his full time living in the music industry, thank you for talking about this. It’s important and I feel like many people don’t know just how little music has really been devalued. So again, thank you 🙏🏻
I'm not pro-Spotify, I'm an independent record producer (and financial analyst) and I'd love to see my artists get paid more for their music. I think these are some fair criticisms of their press release, but I also think it entirely misses the economics of the problem by failing to look at Spotify's financial statements and quarterly performance. $13.3B revenue -$9.9B cost of revenue ($9B payouts to artists) -$3.8B operating cost (R&D, Sales, marketing) --I mean it's not exactly like there's a whole lot more cashflow Spotify could just pay out. If in theory they doubled their revenue for the same amount of streams and cut all operating costs, and paid out every penny of revenue to artists - I think the per-stream model still fails to pay well. One of my bands made about $25 last year on thousands of streams. Unless Spotify does something like 100x their revenue without additional cost, that band would probably still be operating net negative. Again, I'm sure there are execs with huge comp packages, I'm sure there are wasteful things they spend money on within the company in R&D or marketing. But without generating A LOT more revenue, a per-stream model will fail to compensate artists fairly. Perhaps the answer isn't per-stream. In the old days of iTunes, or CD's, or vinyl, people paid for the song up front and listened as many times as they liked. Assuming they didn't steal physical copies, and pirating is similar, the audience had financial constraints as to how much music they could listen to. It's an amazing privilege to be able to listen to virtually any music at any time in any place, but that's part of why the economics are so tricky.
I couldn't agree more. I considered maybe a model where each first stream of a song by a unique listener is paid out instead of every stream. I don’t have enough data to gauge feasibility though. And it would reduce income for major artists who have the highest share of repeat listeners, and they’d probably throw a fit.@@perfectallycromulent
yea man. spotify really lost its reputation. i mean 250 million subscribers, damn fantano really started a movement in taking down spotify and people are catching on 💀
@jahterminatedlmao5473 it was a joke, and more paid subscribers does not equal better company/reputation. Blizzard, EA and Facebook (“Meta”) are examples of this.
The more i think about spotify, the clearer it seems that the problem is not the company - its that the service is too cheap. In 2023, spotify paid $9b in royalties against $13b in total revenue. Even if spotify paid ALL the money to artists, this would only mean a 40% increase. Earning .0056 cents a stream instead of .004 probably changes nothing for the vast majority of artists on spotify. Spotify posted a loss for 2023 anyway. I don't see how Spotify is supposed to come up with the money to fairly compensate artists, and I don't see people likely being willing to pay on the magnitude of $50 a month (or more) for their music streaming.
This is indeed the problem. We've had an expectation set with all media that it should verge on free for the volume available to use for these kinds of monthly fees. The art itself has been societally devalued.
@@FangsFirst but somehow, people keep making more music than ever. what are people who are not musicians supposed to do with this volume? toss aside everything they've listened to in the past for a constant stream of new stuff, and then toss a bunch of money at this new stuff, whether they like it or not, because people just won't stop making music and then whining about not getting paid for something no one forced them to do?
"smaller indie artists" "Phoebe Bridgers and the Arctic Monkeys". Like I don't want to seem pretentious but that's the list of underground small artists of someone who exclusively listens to Taylor Swift. Those are huge international artists who are incredibly famous and sell out stadiums. A small Indië artist is my cousin James or some band playing at a bar for like 20-50 people, not The Arctic Monkeys.
"Generating", meaning they don't want to use the word that could infer that Spotify should be subject to labor laws. That should tell you enough about how much they care about artists.
Spotify is the gateway I use to find and listen to artists, fall in love then buy their albums. Sort of how I borrow books from the library before I buy them. Except I do pay for Spotify. And the library doesn't penalize indie authors.
I mean, Napster was also getting a lot of exposure for artists and lowered barriers. Are the 'lowered barriers' increasing the volume of content, making it harder for artists to get high play counts? $9B+ sounds like a lot of money, until you divide that by 9 billion artists. It's not what they tell us, but it's what they don't. Personally I don't expect Spotify to change the game when they think they control the game, changing the game will come down to the consumer and the labels, what do we do?
@@theLiveChive don't worry you've made your point ahah, with that being said, $9B+ is really good, but indeed considering that Spotify pays artists in percentages of their revenue which is dictated by the streams, meaning there's no such thing as a pay per stream, it still doesn't benefit artists that much
My understanding is that most of spotify's revenue goes to artists/labels, so the only way for them to pay artists significantly more would be to charge more for the service. If we, the listeners, aren't willing to pay a fair amount for the music then I don't see how spotify can be expected to solve the problem.
Spotify doesn’t rep musicians it reps rights holders for music. How can they disintermediate on behalf of those who assigned their rights to another party before even Spotify is in the mix? Kind of a weird focus. If I have rights to my music I can go to Spotify directly. If I sign away my music without Spotify involved I can’t cry about Spotify.
The internet unbundled albums and made all information free to distribute. This hurt all industries who had a monopoly on distributing information in the physical world: not just record labels, but also newspapers. Spotify may not necessarily be increasing the value of music, but this doesn't mean that it's to blame for it's decline. I mostly think of it as offering a service to consumers that makes it easier to get music without having to get limewire. Because piracy is always an option, Spotify can't charge much more to consumers. Even now, Spotify doesn't make much profit on music -- it's profits have come from things like podcasts where it doesn't have to pay labels and can insert ads. If music streaming disappeared tomorrow, they wouldn't suddenly be able to make more money. In that context, I think the real evil is labels. They no longer have a monopoly on distribution, and are not that helpful at promoting artists, since artists can promote directly on the internet. But labels still stand between artists and a larger share of their Spotify profits.
I don't hold the ad reads against him, but I'm just taken aback by, after all these years of just selling the Ridge and sort of just talking about it as if it were an afterthought, he's suddenly doing full-on, complete shift of gears ad reads. He should do Blue Chew.
Are these types of ad's really that effective? I usually just skip past them tbh, I guess they must make some money for the company though as they haven't gone away.
@@ictogon Let's say I streamed 2000 songs last year (about 7.5 per day). On tidal, that yields an estimated $17.52, whereas it yields about $6 in Spotify. Let's say 100 people switch. that's about $1,000 more to artists overall. It's not a lot when it's one person, but it adds up.
why have opinions when you could observe facts, remember the facts, reject the falsehood, and don't assume what you don't know, and learn when you don't know? it's a tried and true method.
I guess I’m a little confused. I’d love for artists to somehow make more money from streaming - but how would Spotify know/ why would they care what the artists get given it’s the rights holders with whom they hold the contracts. Am I missing something obvious here?
Good video but you should also know independent artists don't necessarily see all their revenue as well which might make it difficult for spotify to tally. Many smaller artists like myself use the free tier of music distributors to get their music to streaming platforms which foregoes an up front fee but gives the distributor a % of revenue.
As an Australian based artist, Spotty Face only pays me $0.007 (1 700th of a cent) per play. My band has had more streams on Spotty Face than on RUclips Music but we've earned at least double the amount from RUclips Music. I will give Spotty Face this though, they do at least pay better than TikTok as we had a song that had something like 10,000 plays through TikTok and we earned NOTHING.
Yo fantano my boy you NEED to check out Opus Kink. My favorite alternative/post punk band of recent memory. They randomly popped up on my recommended for Spotify and I’ve loved them ever since.
Honest question, why is the unfairness of music right agreements thrown as something that is Spotify's fault? From my point of view what Spotify has provided is a great service for the customer. They did not change the way the music industry works but that is not their responsability so..
Little indie bands like The Cure and The Pixies have so much to thank Spotify who would've known any of these bands existed without exposure on Spotify?
What if spotify pushed more things that you can buy from a creator? More focus on concerts, merch, vinyls, cds and more. They make it like a social network for artists to reach out to their fans, interact with them, and even possibly have "premium content", where you have to subscribe to the artist individually / buy certain limited content. And let's say they would only take a very small cut of those. Something a bit like patreon? Because "all-you-can-eat" streaming feels difficult to fill the monetary needs of artists, since I for instance listen to many thousands of songs a month, paying a total of 10$. That's .01 $ per stream (for 1000 streams / month) in total which is very little, especially since the artist probably only get's a small fraction of it... Would also be cooler if the earning of the artist was relative towards your listened minutes, because for instance listening to the entirety 20 min long Close to the Edge by Yes is not really the same as streaming a 1 minute song, but Spotify seems to think so.
tbh i wouldnt mind paying $25+ a month for Spotify if the artists are being paid well and the profit wasn't going to some piece of shit billionaire's wallet
“Generating” is what Spotify gets. Then they give 70 percent to the artists or Labels. Then half is gone for taxes. So, off of that 10k the artist probably made 3k maximum.
Imagine the wealth of art and music that would be available to all of us if only there were no incentive for ghoulish companies like Spotify to squeeze creative people for their labor. Not just Spotify, but all companies and all creative people. Even Gary who's stuck working the drive through at Taco Bell and can't afford a distortion pedal. Think of poor Gary.
I've been trying to imagine a world where bean counting is the hobby and actual real world value is placed on those who dedicate themselves to art and craft.
Ok, not totally disagreeing here but just having internet access in a country is not good enough to have a viable service for subscribers. Some type of infrastructure needs to be near to keep the streaming quality up. That requires investment. So let's not oversimplify things. Spotify aren't Saints. But let's always go back the supposidly the good ol days of physical media where the BIG LABELS had all the power because of the HUGE cost of entry. I don't think anyone today is ready to start burning CDs and begging local music stores to carry their music.
I was worried for a few years that we’d lost you to the same sort of corporation-fueled poptimism we lost Pitchfork to. I hope seeing them dig their own grave woke you up. Thank you so much for sticking up for indie artists!!!
I appreciate you calling out Spotify for taking credit for simple technological progression and spread of the internet. Viral technologies will just spread, they’re not doing anything special, and if it wasn’t the internet or them, it would be something else
I've been free of subscription-based music streaming services for a year and I do not miss them. All my money spent on music goes directly to artists and it's way more than if I kept paying for Spotify
@@caseyjones3522I mean thing is, if anything happens to streaming, I can just go online and find the downloads. It's not a "big deal" owning songs as they're uploaded and ready to find all over the internet, only if you really don't like big tech and proprietary software
Some thoughts on this video: - the Uruguay controversy its not Spotify fault. That was bad politics applied with people that didn’t know the whole picture. They expected more money from Spotify, without touching Record Labels. - Spotify celebrating more people listening what is wrong with that? “Its just the internet being the internet”, there is a whole team beside the investors, that work hard to give this service, they can feel proud about their work. - why would Spotify know how record labels pay their artists? Its not data they work on
Can you talk about the secret composer (Johan Rörs) that has over 600 pseudonym on spotify and all together are the most stremd person from Sweden bigger then Avicii
my brother is in a band with 13k monthly listeners, they make ~$200 a month from spotify and ~$2000 a month from bandcamp. That’s the “mystery generation of small independent artists” that spotify describes lol
In the book chokepoint capitalism, Cory Doctorow talks about how the model rewards low level listenable tracks. Long albums and playlists that people put on in the background I am betting the lion share of those non household names generating $5m are these artists
Piracy is not even morally neutral; it is a moral good. Preserve our media; do not let capitalists decide what lives and what dies. If you're concerned about supporting artists, then buy vinyl and merch and go to concerts. Streaming gets them fuck-all.
Hi @fantano for someone who wants o support the artist as much as possible, what streaming is the best? Ofc buying the albums from the artist and going to their concerts is the best way to support (i dont know for sure the best way, would be happy if i could get suggestions) but i still want to be able to stream the artists aswell.
I'm confused why an artists label deal has anything to do with Spotify, if Spotify give you $10k and you only see like 3k or whatever because of your label how is that even remotely Spotifys fault? Not saying I'm a fan of how much they pay out but you spent most of the video talking about issues that have nothing to do with Spotify.
I mean Spotify is good at recommending indie artist, but compare to their competition it is not even close to their selling point. You get and buy Spotify so you can listen to big artists who don't put their music on other platforms. When you see smaller artists take down music on Spotify because it isn't worth to keep it up it is hard to agree. All in all as a consumer i am happy with spotify. (Quick question, i feel like youtube premium should be the best app for music, small and big artists have music on youtube, i like the music i get recommended on youtube the most. Only concern i have is if premium makes downloading and offline listening bearable, and that it doesn't f*ck my normal recommend on youtube.)
Wish he would have spoke a bit louder about the fact that Spotify really wasn’t as loud and clear as they claimed to be in this meeting. Would clear up a lot of confusion around the video.
0:04 Sounds like something Eminem would say
It’s fun for me just to grab a… BOOB
Then he’d say “it’s Fantano, hey, my man-o!”
thats an awfully hot coffee pot
2008 Eminem
@@josh44026nah, current age Eminem
i still can’t spot the guy talking bout spotify
but can u spot them
@@defnotisaiah3210 its me, i am the guy
@@defnotisaiah3210where???
@@CalebPanda1it took me a while too don't worry! I just squinted my eyes and looked at the centre really hard and I could just make him out. Pretty hidden.
transition would've saved her /j
It'd be way funnier if the sponsor was Spotify
Sponsored by the Joe Rogan podcast.
Lol
Evil Fantano be like:
We’ve had Evil Fantano since like 2010 though
@@SavannahKo-j1caverage 12 y/o kanye glazers be like
Evil fantano: "I will charitably review this kanye album instead of letting my political biases affect my review"
@@marinaaaa2735very true
@@marinaaaa2735minimizing ye being a nazi to simply just “political biases” is crazy
"I don't care if they whip their employees for being 1 minute late. They have all my favorite albums in one place!" - Fantano
ew
ikr like verbatim wtf????
When they say something is 'generating' money that's purely for the benefit of their investors, the only people they care about keeping happy. The rest is plain old corporate doublespeak
This has been my biggest qualm with Spotify over the past 5+ years. Time and time again they brag about how they saved the music industry, revenue is up, the industry makes so much more- but if none of that money ever makes it to the actual musicians, then how has it saved anything? it seems more like you took the money i earned with my music to make and sell AI weapons to Lockheed (I still cant believe we let them get away with that)
@@claysmith8840 dawg i bet your favorite artist wouldnt be pulling in anywhere near as much money if apple music was left on its own to be a monopoly. and we're not gonna sit here and pretend bandcamp was the other option. melons fanbase thinks the whole world was upset when it got bad, even though literally no one except hardcore music nerds used it
@@jahterminatedlmao5473sounds like a skill issue. maybe if more people than just “hardcore music nerds” used Bandcamp the world would be a better place for artists.
@@claysmith8840 there are musicians who are billionaires now, and their number is growing. there are many more people in the music industry with hundreds of millions in assets. in other words, people with power. these are the people who should be leading the charge here, it's an industry pay-rate issue. making fans feel guitly for buying an openly sold completely legal product is bullshit.
@@jahterminatedlmao5473guess I'm a hardcore music nerd for wanting artists to be paid fairly and acting accordingly. I've earned hundreds times more through bandcamp sales than spotify streams even though the clicks are higher. Does it make me naive to wish the worse of the two to become better rather than the better to become worse?
I just wrote a whole essay on why Spotify is evil and it’s due tomorrow… Now I have to redo the whole thing. Thanks Fantano 😘
As long as you keep using youtube links instead of spotify links for tracks of the week, ill be happy.
"Spotify is an evil corporation that harms everyone, let me just use Google products instead, Google seems nice"
I'm a small artist. Wanna know how much I've made from Spotify? $0.00. I haven't made enough money to be paid out by Spotify over the past year. And now with them introducing the new rule that an artist has to surpass 1,000 streams annually to even qualify for compensation, it might be a while before I even see any money. On the flipside, a couple album sales recently put money right in my pocket. Thank you to those who bought my music.
Support the artist, buy their album if you like it, it goes way further than a stream ever will.
dawg if you thought you were gonna get any money from any platform with less than 1k monthly streams... idk what to say man. even youtube doesn't allow monetization until you meet such and such criteria. but hey with physical media making a comeback, there should be viable alternatives to streaming services soon
@@jahterminatedlmao5473 There's money on my distrokid account, just not enough to pay out. I wasn't expecting more money, I know that streaming is a bad deal for artists. One $10 album sale is the equivalent of 5,000 streams, of course before Apple, Bandcamp, or whoever takes their cut. If just 1% of 5,000 people bought an album, that's $500. While RUclips has a threshold for their partner program, uploading music through a distribution service gets automatically monetized. I was uploading music to RUclips on a different channel back when they first opened up the monetization to everyone, that was pretty cool. I can't say I agree with them raising the requirements for monetization, but this is also the company that slapped ads on all unmonetized videos and just take the money for themselves, so RUclips isn't exactly who I'd wanna compete with as a platform.
dude I've got 20k monthly listeners and I still only get paid 350/mo it's a total joke Spotify pays slave wages
@@chapstixxx-n3s Are you making decent sales with that many listeners? There's gotta be a small percentage that buy your music.
@@chapstixxx-n3s living sustainably off of 20k people consuming your content is gonna be impossible on any platform, music or otherwise. taking these grievances seriously is easier when someone with over 150K plus monthly listeners is making less than 2K a month. when random indie artist with marginal streams frankly isnt improving or bringing anything of substance money wise to the platform, theres obviously no incentive to pay them what theyre asking for
Anthony, as someone who earns his full time living in the music industry, thank you for talking about this. It’s important and I feel like many people don’t know just how little music has really been devalued. So again, thank you 🙏🏻
the skies of earth are so beautiful this time of day.
I'm not pro-Spotify, I'm an independent record producer (and financial analyst) and I'd love to see my artists get paid more for their music. I think these are some fair criticisms of their press release, but I also think it entirely misses the economics of the problem by failing to look at Spotify's financial statements and quarterly performance.
$13.3B revenue
-$9.9B cost of revenue ($9B payouts to artists)
-$3.8B operating cost (R&D, Sales, marketing)
--I mean it's not exactly like there's a whole lot more cashflow Spotify could just pay out. If in theory they doubled their revenue for the same amount of streams and cut all operating costs, and paid out every penny of revenue to artists - I think the per-stream model still fails to pay well. One of my bands made about $25 last year on thousands of streams. Unless Spotify does something like 100x their revenue without additional cost, that band would probably still be operating net negative.
Again, I'm sure there are execs with huge comp packages, I'm sure there are wasteful things they spend money on within the company in R&D or marketing. But without generating A LOT more revenue, a per-stream model will fail to compensate artists fairly. Perhaps the answer isn't per-stream. In the old days of iTunes, or CD's, or vinyl, people paid for the song up front and listened as many times as they liked. Assuming they didn't steal physical copies, and pirating is similar, the audience had financial constraints as to how much music they could listen to. It's an amazing privilege to be able to listen to virtually any music at any time in any place, but that's part of why the economics are so tricky.
the old days of having to pay for a song before you knew whether you liked it sucked.
I couldn't agree more. I considered maybe a model where each first stream of a song by a unique listener is paid out instead of every stream. I don’t have enough data to gauge feasibility though. And it would reduce income for major artists who have the highest share of repeat listeners, and they’d probably throw a fit.@@perfectallycromulent
@@perfectallycromulenti would be sticking to the radio if that was still the case
vaporwave mentioned
リサフランク420 / 現代のコンピュー type moment tbh
I was expecting him to say Brazil instead of SA
They hate ne cause I'm vaporwave
genuinely thank you for staying on top of spotify for all the garbage they pull because i dont hear anyone else talk about this stuff
Check out Benn Jordan. He's a musician himself and goes hard on Spotify
his recent video about disappearing music was eye opening in terms of how this business is run
Others do talk about it, and I thank them, too.
FR
Spotify Restore Reputation Any% Glitchless Speedrun 11:57
Can oatsngoats best it?
yea man. spotify really lost its reputation. i mean 250 million subscribers, damn fantano really started a movement in taking down spotify and people are catching on 💀
@jahterminatedlmao5473 it was a joke, and more paid subscribers does not equal better company/reputation. Blizzard, EA and Facebook (“Meta”) are examples of this.
Uruguay mentioned 🇺🇾🐮🤠
Ur a gay... lmaooooo gottem
Spotify … not inviting Fantano to another loud and clear 😂
fr 😭
The more i think about spotify, the clearer it seems that the problem is not the company - its that the service is too cheap. In 2023, spotify paid $9b in royalties against $13b in total revenue. Even if spotify paid ALL the money to artists, this would only mean a 40% increase. Earning .0056 cents a stream instead of .004 probably changes nothing for the vast majority of artists on spotify. Spotify posted a loss for 2023 anyway. I don't see how Spotify is supposed to come up with the money to fairly compensate artists, and I don't see people likely being willing to pay on the magnitude of $50 a month (or more) for their music streaming.
This is indeed the problem. We've had an expectation set with all media that it should verge on free for the volume available to use for these kinds of monthly fees.
The art itself has been societally devalued.
@@FangsFirst but somehow, people keep making more music than ever. what are people who are not musicians supposed to do with this volume? toss aside everything they've listened to in the past for a constant stream of new stuff, and then toss a bunch of money at this new stuff, whether they like it or not, because people just won't stop making music and then whining about not getting paid for something no one forced them to do?
well they should and very interesting point
I think the biggest advantage of Spotify is their better cross platform support. Especially on PC.
what does that have to do with the video?
@@CoNiCuZneven though iphone in itself is more sold than any one brand of phones, android phones are still more popular because of the low cost
Spotifys desktop clients on all platforms are so bad. All of them are just bad engineering
Spotify>apple
Tidal is the best 😂
"smaller indie artists"
"Phoebe Bridgers and the Arctic Monkeys".
Like I don't want to seem pretentious but that's the list of underground small artists of someone who exclusively listens to Taylor Swift. Those are huge international artists who are incredibly famous and sell out stadiums. A small Indië artist is my cousin James or some band playing at a bar for like 20-50 people, not The Arctic Monkeys.
Idk just feels like a deeply ignorant and out of touch list , kinda embarrassing
I saw a band called 12 RODS in the 90s, they basically went nowhere. I thought for sure they'd be stars
@@Saironifantano only reviews the pop girlies
"THE ONE PIECE IS REAL"
-Anthony Fantano, probably
"Generating", meaning they don't want to use the word that could infer that Spotify should be subject to labor laws. That should tell you enough about how much they care about artists.
Who on Gods Green Earth working for Spotify thought inviting Melon to that call was the move?
Ever heard of : “no such thing as bad publicity”
@@giovannidejoie8618 literally everybody knows Spotify already by now 🤡 now they just know it worse lmfao
@@giovannidejoie8618as if they needed any at this point
Spotify is the gateway I use to find and listen to artists, fall in love then buy their albums. Sort of how I borrow books from the library before I buy them. Except I do pay for Spotify. And the library doesn't penalize indie authors.
taxes pay for the library, so if you pay taxes, you're paying for that ,ibrary too, at a rate that is adjusted by your income.
@@perfectallycromulentIt pays the library not the authors there
i never thought i would hear melon say he likes his worst enemy
I mean, Napster was also getting a lot of exposure for artists and lowered barriers. Are the 'lowered barriers' increasing the volume of content, making it harder for artists to get high play counts? $9B+ sounds like a lot of money, until you divide that by 9 billion artists. It's not what they tell us, but it's what they don't.
Personally I don't expect Spotify to change the game when they think they control the game, changing the game will come down to the consumer and the labels, what do we do?
There aren't 9B people in the world, much less artists, but I get your logic
@@joaorufino4952 yes, it was a little nonsensical of me 😂
@@theLiveChive don't worry you've made your point ahah, with that being said, $9B+ is really good, but indeed considering that Spotify pays artists in percentages of their revenue which is dictated by the streams, meaning there's no such thing as a pay per stream, it still doesn't benefit artists that much
My understanding is that most of spotify's revenue goes to artists/labels, so the only way for them to pay artists significantly more would be to charge more for the service. If we, the listeners, aren't willing to pay a fair amount for the music then I don't see how spotify can be expected to solve the problem.
It's never going to happen, music piracy is too easy
🎶Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies🎶
Spotify doesn’t rep musicians it reps rights holders for music. How can they disintermediate on behalf of those who assigned their rights to another party before even Spotify is in the mix? Kind of a weird focus. If I have rights to my music I can go to Spotify directly. If I sign away my music without Spotify involved I can’t cry about Spotify.
yeah I agree with that tbh that was a kinda irrelevant point
I’m mad hyped for The Needle Drop streaming platform. I feel like you have great ideas for how to make streaming services better for artists
Thank you, Anthony, for being a voice of truth out here. All the “little guy” musicians/artists appreciate you, sir. 💜
The internet unbundled albums and made all information free to distribute. This hurt all industries who had a monopoly on distributing information in the physical world: not just record labels, but also newspapers. Spotify may not necessarily be increasing the value of music, but this doesn't mean that it's to blame for it's decline. I mostly think of it as offering a service to consumers that makes it easier to get music without having to get limewire. Because piracy is always an option, Spotify can't charge much more to consumers. Even now, Spotify doesn't make much profit on music -- it's profits have come from things like podcasts where it doesn't have to pay labels and can insert ads. If music streaming disappeared tomorrow, they wouldn't suddenly be able to make more money.
In that context, I think the real evil is labels. They no longer have a monopoly on distribution, and are not that helpful at promoting artists, since artists can promote directly on the internet. But labels still stand between artists and a larger share of their Spotify profits.
I am annoyed by how everyone here expects Spotify to save the world.
I don't hold the ad reads against him, but I'm just taken aback by, after all these years of just selling the Ridge and sort of just talking about it as if it were an afterthought, he's suddenly doing full-on, complete shift of gears ad reads.
He should do Blue Chew.
yeah ngl it really threw me off 😭
Step 1: push away half your original fanbase,
Step 2: moneygrab in your videos
Step 3: dead channel
Just get the SponsorBlock extension.
Are these types of ad's really that effective? I usually just skip past them tbh, I guess they must make some money for the company though as they haven't gone away.
@@YoullClapWhenImGone I always wonder this, I skip ad reads literally every single time
take a shot every time anthony says "loud and clear"
reaffirms my switch to Tidal
Nothing you do matters
@@ictogonDemonstrably untrue
@@sweetwheatsy I mean, in this case, this guy buying Tidal won't end the entire Spotify empire lol
@@ictogon Let's say I streamed 2000 songs last year (about 7.5 per day). On tidal, that yields an estimated $17.52, whereas it yields about $6 in Spotify. Let's say 100 people switch. that's about $1,000 more to artists overall. It's not a lot when it's one person, but it adds up.
I DONT KNOW WHAT OPINION TO HAVE AHHHH!!!
*insert the screaming kitten touching her head meme*
why have opinions when you could observe facts, remember the facts, reject the falsehood, and don't assume what you don't know, and learn when you don't know? it's a tried and true method.
Everyone has opinions. It's impossible not to have them.
@@snoozley853 then suffer.
@@UndarZI don't think so
I guess I’m a little confused. I’d love for artists to somehow make more money from streaming - but how would Spotify know/ why would they care what the artists get given it’s the rights holders with whom they hold the contracts. Am I missing something obvious here?
I'm honestly just here for the ad read.
Good video but you should also know independent artists don't necessarily see all their revenue as well which might make it difficult for spotify to tally. Many smaller artists like myself use the free tier of music distributors to get their music to streaming platforms which foregoes an up front fee but gives the distributor a % of revenue.
artists need to be paid more for this to continue
Artists need to make better music, or get a real job.
Rock that soundboard man you deserve it! 😂
As an Australian based artist, Spotty Face only pays me $0.007 (1 700th of a cent) per play. My band has had more streams on Spotty Face than on RUclips Music but we've earned at least double the amount from RUclips Music. I will give Spotty Face this though, they do at least pay better than TikTok as we had a song that had something like 10,000 plays through TikTok and we earned NOTHING.
3:58 its giving "katy perry is the first woman to reach the top 10 of the billboard hot dance chart with a song produced by zedd in 2019"
Maybe it's time to go back to piracy? If the money I pay to Spotify isn't reaching the artists I care about then what's the point?
Alternative honest title: "Spotify Is Actually Bad"
Still true
@@siddheshpillai3807no, its not
Yo fantano my boy you NEED to check out Opus Kink. My favorite alternative/post punk band of recent memory. They randomly popped up on my recommended for Spotify and I’ve loved them ever since.
They too popped out right after I started listening to Maruja and that's my best random algorithm encounter to date!
Four Tet- Three Review
That was great content. Absolutely made my day. “Not so loud and clear” 😂
Spotify is actually entirely beholden to music labels like UMG and Sony. Spotify is a dying business because of them.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if UMG or another huge label pulls out of Spotify (like what happened with TikTok) "for their artists".
Spotify is my most used app for discovering new music band but it needs to add more like older albums
I'm from uruguay, spotify didnt actually pull out, it was used as a threat until the government accepted spotifys policies
Honest question, why is the unfairness of music right agreements thrown as something that is Spotify's fault?
From my point of view what Spotify has provided is a great service for the customer.
They did not change the way the music industry works but that is not their responsability so..
when the customer wins, the artist loses. That's melon's viewpoint.
NAH, THEY KEPT HIDING NCT 127 And their songs aND PUSHING BP BECAUSE CEO HAD A DEAL WITH THEM AND AUTOPLAYED THEIR SONGS AND PUSH THEM TO ALL USERS
I think it’s a little rash to suggest boycotting music altogether just to affect Spotify’s bottom line
Shoutout to Uruguay 🇺🇾
Little indie bands like The Cure and The Pixies have so much to thank Spotify who would've known any of these bands existed without exposure on Spotify?
Most people in South Africa’s first language would be english
What if spotify pushed more things that you can buy from a creator? More focus on concerts, merch, vinyls, cds and more. They make it like a social network for artists to reach out to their fans, interact with them, and even possibly have "premium content", where you have to subscribe to the artist individually / buy certain limited content. And let's say they would only take a very small cut of those. Something a bit like patreon?
Because "all-you-can-eat" streaming feels difficult to fill the monetary needs of artists, since I for instance listen to many thousands of songs a month, paying a total of 10$. That's .01 $ per stream (for 1000 streams / month) in total which is very little, especially since the artist probably only get's a small fraction of it...
Would also be cooler if the earning of the artist was relative towards your listened minutes, because for instance listening to the entirety 20 min long Close to the Edge by Yes is not really the same as streaming a 1 minute song, but Spotify seems to think so.
Honestly I’m 50/50, I feel like they’re giving a little too much to indie artists in terms of money+a platform
I agree give all the money to playboi carti
Theyre never inviting you to another meeting ever again
anthony fantano what do you think about ronald reagan
i would like to see numbers including industry music vs independent music instead of English spoken vs the rest..
there's a pretty good reason why they don't wanna show people those numbers
Now I can use Spotify thanks for your approval melon !
tbh i wouldnt mind paying $25+ a month for Spotify if the artists are being paid well and the profit wasn't going to some piece of shit billionaire's wallet
“Generating” is what Spotify gets. Then they give 70 percent to the artists or Labels. Then half is gone for taxes. So, off of that 10k the artist probably made 3k maximum.
that's what you believe lol
@@caseyjones3522 I am open to hear your smart take.
Streaming thinks outreach is the priority. Really we need to prioritize fandom and artists
Imagine the wealth of art and music that would be available to all of us if only there were no incentive for ghoulish companies like Spotify to squeeze creative people for their labor.
Not just Spotify, but all companies and all creative people. Even Gary who's stuck working the drive through at Taco Bell and can't afford a distortion pedal.
Think of poor Gary.
I will buy the product you promoted :) I want you to have money to live. Please live Andy
I've been trying to imagine a world where bean counting is the hobby and actual real world value is placed on those who dedicate themselves to art and craft.
Ok, not totally disagreeing here but just having internet access in a country is not good enough to have a viable service for subscribers. Some type of infrastructure needs to be near to keep the streaming quality up. That requires investment. So let's not oversimplify things. Spotify aren't Saints. But let's always go back the supposidly the good ol days of physical media where the BIG LABELS had all the power because of the HUGE cost of entry. I don't think anyone today is ready to start burning CDs and begging local music stores to carry their music.
...Indie Labels? What even does it mean to be indie anymore at this point lmao
Just vaugely gay guitar music
9:55 “if Spotify ACKCHEWAULLY”
I’m the vapourwave producer from South Africa
I was worried for a few years that we’d lost you to the same sort of corporation-fueled poptimism we lost Pitchfork to. I hope seeing them dig their own grave woke you up. Thank you so much for sticking up for indie artists!!!
The only crowd Spotify care for are their investors, especially now when payback time is finally due, it's going to get ugly....
I appreciate you calling out Spotify for taking credit for simple technological progression and spread of the internet. Viral technologies will just spread, they’re not doing anything special, and if it wasn’t the internet or them, it would be something else
if if was the internet, artist wouldn't earn the little they do from spotify
I've been free of subscription-based music streaming services for a year and I do not miss them. All my money spent on music goes directly to artists and it's way more than if I kept paying for Spotify
that's great. now back to listening to Corey Feldman
Geez if you're so excited about Angelic 2 the Core being taken down why'd you go buy the CD
Disco ball going crazy in the back. Having a hard time focusing on the lecture
"generating" includes the distribution percentage?
Insane that they invited you to this lmao
Everyone in the comments: YEAH SPOTIFY BAD
Also everyone: scrolling through their music app
not me. i have an SD card where I own my songs.
Streaming bad but Spotify not bad.
scrollin thru my cd collection
@@caseyjones3522I mean thing is, if anything happens to streaming, I can just go online and find the downloads. It's not a "big deal" owning songs as they're uploaded and ready to find all over the internet, only if you really don't like big tech and proprietary software
Some thoughts on this video:
- the Uruguay controversy its not Spotify fault. That was bad politics applied with people that didn’t know the whole picture. They expected more money from Spotify, without touching Record Labels.
- Spotify celebrating more people listening what is wrong with that? “Its just the internet being the internet”, there is a whole team beside the investors, that work hard to give this service, they can feel proud about their work.
- why would Spotify know how record labels pay their artists? Its not data they work on
Can you talk about the secret composer (Johan Rörs) that has over 600 pseudonym on spotify and all together are the most stremd person from Sweden bigger then Avicii
Melon in his bipolar ye phase.
my brother is in a band with 13k monthly listeners, they make ~$200 a month from spotify and ~$2000 a month from bandcamp. That’s the “mystery generation of small independent artists” that spotify describes lol
anthony you need piercings please let me have you pierced
In the book chokepoint capitalism, Cory Doctorow talks about how the model rewards low level listenable tracks. Long albums and playlists that people put on in the background
I am betting the lion share of those non household names generating $5m are these artists
I miss when he was just sponsored by Ridge Wallets :(
Ridge Wallets is overplayed. I'm okay with that.
Arctic Monkeys Indie? They're mainstream in the uk and every music college student loves them to think they know deep cut music when it's overrrated
auuuusssstiiinnn why don't you let tony use the buttons!!!! they sound funny!!!
Piracy is not even morally neutral; it is a moral good. Preserve our media; do not let capitalists decide what lives and what dies. If you're concerned about supporting artists, then buy vinyl and merch and go to concerts. Streaming gets them fuck-all.
Hi @fantano for someone who wants o support the artist as much as possible, what streaming is the best? Ofc buying the albums from the artist and going to their concerts is the best way to support (i dont know for sure the best way, would be happy if i could get suggestions) but i still want to be able to stream the artists aswell.
I'll always remember how hard I laughed when their email popped into my inbox
I'm confused why an artists label deal has anything to do with Spotify, if Spotify give you $10k and you only see like 3k or whatever because of your label how is that even remotely Spotifys fault? Not saying I'm a fan of how much they pay out but you spent most of the video talking about issues that have nothing to do with Spotify.
I mean Spotify is good at recommending indie artist, but compare to their competition it is not even close to their selling point.
You get and buy Spotify so you can listen to big artists who don't put their music on other platforms. When you see smaller artists take down music on Spotify because it isn't worth to keep it up it is hard to agree.
All in all as a consumer i am happy with spotify.
(Quick question, i feel like youtube premium should be the best app for music, small and big artists have music on youtube, i like the music i get recommended on youtube the most. Only concern i have is if premium makes downloading and offline listening bearable, and that it doesn't f*ck my normal recommend on youtube.)
Commenters on yt are helping generate millions for small creators
The title got me, ngl
Wish he would have spoke a bit louder about the fact that Spotify really wasn’t as loud and clear as they claimed to be in this meeting. Would clear up a lot of confusion around the video.