Caesar

Spotify CEO: Artists need to release every year or two

Recommended Posts

Tropez
2 minutes ago, BobBertran1992 said:

But the thing is, medium size artists used to be able to make a decent living out of pure sales only (even if their deal was rough). Now, with streaming as the main source of income while live music is out, no artist can actually make ends meet even if they release a yearly  LP or whatever. What Spotify's CEO is doing is trying to distract from the main problem: his business doesn't pay enough money to its musicians. But rather than look inward, to his model, he puts the blame on the artists who don't do enough, according to him. 

Where are the labels in all of this? If I am not mistaken, graphs and various stats show the music industry has been making a huge profit and income has been increasing after over a decade of dropping profits. 
 

I think part of the problem is artists are signed on old contracts that didnt give much weight to streaming royalties. Labels own huge shares of Spotify, on top of always being paid first and having the largest share. 
 

If Spotify raises its payment to artists, it will have to raise its monthly price. That will cause consumers to flee or go to Apple which can afford to increase royalties. People will likely pirate music like they used too. Its a tough place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keshaspearsxo
Posted (edited)

Spotify is wack so of course their ceo is too. 
 

This is just not true. Everybody knows touring is the most important factor in the music industry. 

Edited by keshaspearsxo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cloudy

As someone said there are articles and graphs that show the music industry has largely benefited from streaming. Maybe the problem isn't Spotify, but the labels and their contracts? It's kind of always been that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcohen

I don't know why anyone interpreted this as a Spotify Vs. Artists thing. He is explaining how to make the streaming era sustainable and how to develop a following properly. This applies to all platforms and not only Spotify.. Artists have to keep listeners engaged and pleased, releasing every 4-5 years won't do that, and that's where yearly releases come in. The streaming era expanded the options, and listeners will drop you the second they are bored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevyy
3 hours ago, BobBertran1992 said:

But the thing is, medium size artists used to be able to make a decent living out of pure sales only (even if their deal was rough). Now, with streaming as the main source of income while live music is out, no artist can actually make ends meet even if they release a yearly  LP or whatever. What Spotify's CEO is doing is trying to distract from the main problem: his business doesn't pay enough money to its musicians. But rather than look inward, to his model, he puts the blame on the artists who don't do enough, according to him. 

Spotify should cancel their free version and charge $25 per month so that acts can get more money. I believe that it's OK that music artists should be able to live comfortably from their music alone - without any touring or advertisement deals or merchandise etc. 

 

Back in the 1980s and 1990s all it took for even local acts who would only be known in 1-2 European countries, so for them to become millionaires was 1 or 2 hit singles... and they would be set for life. There is an example of a singer from Germany who had like 1 hit song and album and made 25 million Deutsche Marks from it (around 12,5 million €) ... so that person would not even need to record another song in his life and would still be a millionaire today... off of 1 song.

 

That also happened in the 00s still or was pretty much possible... but good luck trying to establish yourself in these days with one hit era... It's so difficult... even a lower end H100 entry should make an artist a millionaire... 

 

a band with like 250,000 monthly listeners on Spotify should make at least $100,000 per month on their streaming alone... otherwise the whole system is not fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevyy
29 minutes ago, Cloudy said:

As someone said there are articles and graphs that show the music industry has largely benefited from streaming. Maybe the problem isn't Spotify, but the labels and their contracts? It's kind of always been that way

I believe that artists today do not need labels anymore. Labels take away too much... from the money. 

 

With social media and all these platforms... you can very well put your music out on your own and see what happens... for some acts with truly great material and a little push from slightly more successful acts... who help them, they could become more famous and see their fanbase growing. 

 

A label used to be this entitiy which would invest millions upon million into an artist and then rob the artist naked once said act became successful... that's not sustainable in this day and age anymore in which acts simply don't get their money anymore. 

 

I mean what's the point of being a music act who gets idk... a few medium sized hits and probably has 1 or 2 albums going Gold here n there... and then has to go on pursuing a daytime job bc he wouldn't get any money from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dolce Vita

for new artists sure. established artists with big enough fanbases + selling and/or streaming power are the only exception 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cloudy
1 hour ago, stevyy said:

I believe that artists today do not need labels anymore. Labels take away too much... from the money. 

 

With social media and all these platforms... you can very well put your music out on your own and see what happens... for some acts with truly great material and a little push from slightly more successful acts... who help them, they could become more famous and see their fanbase growing. 

 

A label used to be this entitiy which would invest millions upon million into an artist and then rob the artist naked once said act became successful... that's not sustainable in this day and age anymore in which acts simply don't get their money anymore. 

 

I mean what's the point of being a music act who gets idk... a few medium sized hits and probably has 1 or 2 albums going Gold here n there... and then has to go on pursuing a daytime job bc he wouldn't get any money from it.

But as you said they need someone to promote them (or go organically viral) because these streaming platforms won't playlist them, nor radio will play them. I still think a label is necessary to get the exposure because they have the money and connections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cloudy
1 hour ago, mcohen said:

I don't know why anyone interpreted this as a Spotify Vs. Artists thing. He is explaining how to make the streaming era sustainable and how to develop a following properly. This applies to all platforms and not only Spotify.. Artists have to keep listeners engaged and pleased, releasing every 4-5 years won't do that, and that's where yearly releases come in. The streaming era expanded the options, and listeners will drop you the second they are bored. 

It's basically the Kpop/Jpop business model that they were doing over a decade ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobBertran1992
1 minute ago, Cloudy said:

But as you said they need someone to promote them (or go organically viral) because these streaming platforms won't playlist them, nor radio will play them. I still think a label is necessary to get the exposure because they have the money and connections

Exatcly, few people make it without a label, you need their contacts to get into majoe radio stations or streaming lists. Maybe you might get a viral hit on Tik Tok (not anymore in the US) or on Twitter or Youtube, but to be able to have a long career you still need a label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cloudy
Just now, BobBertran1992 said:

Exatcly, few people make it without a label, you need their contacts to get into majoe radio stations or streaming lists. Maybe you might get a viral hit on Tik Tok (not anymore in the US) or on Twitter or Youtube, but to be able to have a long career you still need a label.

Exactly. Plus it's not like unfair contracts didn't exist prior to the streaming era

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eaucitronnée

He's not entirely wrong so to speak; if you're just starting out as a musician you kinda need to have a constant output of new music to keep a steady income. It's only when you become a B-list mainstream artist or an A-list "indie" artist that you kinda don't have to worry about constant new music output. There is a reason why Adele is able to release only two albums per decade while these Bandcamp artists release new EP's and albums every couple of months.

That this is being said by an industry executive is a little disconcerting though; he shouldn't be discouraging artists from releasing the way they want to. But then again this is what ALL of them are thinking lol. The kpop release schedule is coming to take over Western music, you guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobBertran1992
1 hour ago, eaucitronnée said:

He's not entirely wrong so to speak; if you're just starting out as a musician you kinda need to have a constant output of new music to keep a steady income. It's only when you become a B-list mainstream artist or an A-list "indie" artist that you kinda don't have to worry about constant new music output. There is a reason why Adele is able to release only two albums per decade while these Bandcamp artists release new EP's and albums every couple of months.

That this is being said by an industry executive is a little disconcerting though; he shouldn't be discouraging artists from releasing the way they want to. But then again this is what ALL of them are thinking lol. The kpop release schedule is coming to take over Western music, you guys

People like Lady Gaga, Adele or even Ariana Grande are the last of a generation, the last of a bunch of artists who relied heavily on album sales (we just have to remember all of the fights and feuds here on this website): If these three women had decided to quit the business after their first two albums, they would have been set for life. For upcoming pop artists, I feel like this isn't happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jomarr
On 8/1/2020 at 1:59 AM, truthteller said:

Someone tag beauty guru miss fenty

Avon Lady is punishing us because we were complaining about her yearly releases from 2005-2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BGXKB

Spotify has literally made the world a worse place and it’s because of crap like this. Why can’t everyone work at their own pace? That’s what artistry is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Phoenix

Gross, so he wants the music equivalent of fast food? And to be under 3 minutes btw.

 

Artist should release music whenever they feel and want, this statement only add pressure on them because the music companies now have an excuse to push for releases.

 

He’s mad because he needs content and he doesn’t have control on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starsailor

Xtina, the rule breaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phantom

So basically make music forever and in shorter bursts regardless of creative inclinations or starve 

 

Ok

 

Good CEO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KMO

I mean they have data. And they can see that artists who release more often are more successful.. correcting for other factors and influences. Many older artists don’t heavily rely on streaming for income/performance measures so they’re fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KMO

I mean they have data. And they can see that artists who release more often are more successful.. correcting for other factors and influences. Many older artists don’t heavily rely on streaming for income/performance measures so they’re fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KMO

I mean they have data. And they can see that artists who release more often are more successful.. correcting for other factors and influences. Many older artists don’t heavily rely on streaming for income/performance measures so they’re fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReH2o

the shade to my fave :giraffe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceMan

Nope he sounds like an ass 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gotportugal
On 8/1/2020 at 2:53 AM, NMiguelCosta said:

Only 46% of currently active Spotify users are on the premium tier, everyone else is on the ad-supported free tier. Other streaming services can pay better per stream because they only offer a paying service plus their users stream a lot less which means more revenue to be distributed to the artists. Spotify pays more or less the same to the artists whether streams come from paying users or ad-supported users. And you see Youtube on that list paying almost nothing because their only revenue comes from ads. 

most of the people complaining also enjoy Spotify for free and then complain. music ain't cheap, and yet Spotify attempts to provide it to people who would otherwise just pirate it.... quite better for artists if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gotportugal
22 hours ago, BGXKB said:

Spotify has literally made the world a worse place and it’s because of crap like this. Why can’t everyone work at their own pace? That’s what artistry is. 

since when does Spotify change any artistry? make it make sense. Godify has been able to pull plenty of people off from pirating music (hence contributing 0$$ to artists) while surviving AM's bullish activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites