dumbsparce Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Love Again said: The point is is that Spotify treats artists like garbage, it's not JUST about this new rule. Small artists are struggling to live off their music, not to mention beginning artists who are signed to a big label, they rarely see any profit at all. Everything goes to either streaming services or the label itself. Mainstream artists hold the power to incite change. That's how business works though. If there's a million amateurs uploading whatever on the service but bring in zero new subscribers, they are nothing more than a liability to the company, especially when they get royalites too. Those are the only ones that will get affected and most of them, like I said, are amateurs that have another job as their main source of income. No professional artist who has small gigs here and there or has label support will be unable to get 2 HUNDRED streams per song. Like, baby, if there are not 200 people in the world willing to listen to your song then Spotify should be the least of your concerns. Edited October 25, 2023 by dumbsparce 1 4
Bosque Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 Streaming will never be financially sustainable anyway. Spotify doesn't own any music on their platform, and they cannot afford to lose any one of the major (or even important indie) labels. The moment the business starts turning a profit, the labels will ask for higher royalties (and certainly not pass them on to their artists). If you're a professional musician trying to live off your music, streaming is basically a marketing tool for your live shows, not a way to make money, and that will never change. 2
Trent W Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 (edited) 200 plays is way too low But honestly Spotify is rigged af I think that any artist signed to a BIG label should be dragged these days We need to consume more artists that build themselves Label artists are most of the time nepo babies with no talent that are bought their success especially these days. If we supported more independent acts the quality will go up in an insane way overall. Edited October 25, 2023 by Trent W 2
dussel_06 Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 (edited) No. I just came back to spotify from AM to contribute to Taylor’s daily streams and I need her slayage for my mental health. Taylor already did. It will be cringe if she did it again. She will be seen as some privileged and entitled artist who think highly of herself. Some people should do it first. Let the guys do it first this time. Taylor can just follow. Spotify shouldn’t pay podcasters if they need money to pay indie artists. Podcasters are cringe and unfiltered. Most of them just spread hate and stupid advices then got paid. Ugh Edited October 25, 2023 by dussel_06 1 2
Reginald Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 The threshold might be 200 now, but that will definitely increase. Companies do things incrementally. 5 years from now it might be in the thousands, or tens of thousands. 1
Solaria Posted October 25, 2023 Author Posted October 25, 2023 2 minutes ago, Reginald said: The threshold might be 200 now, but that will definitely increase. Companies do things incrementally. 5 years from now it might be in the thousands, or tens of thousands. 1
BILLIONAIRE✘BOY Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 I will stream every gaga song 200 times #stefaniyouaresafe 1
Mr. Blue_Shirt Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 It's actually sad that even someone like Taylor, who pulled all of her catalog from the site years ago, didn't affect Spotify enough for them to actually pay the artists fairly 1
vale9001 Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Reginald said: The threshold might be 200 now, but that will definitely increase. Companies do things incrementally. 5 years from now it might be in the thousands, or tens of thousands. users should increment too. the "problem" with spotify is music is gonna be more and more less their main business. They have recently added audiobooks for example, if people can spent like 2 weeks to listen to a book they're liking and it's 20 hours long for 2 weeks they could stop to listen to music. Probably sooner or later videos, movies and whatever will arrive too. Apple music is more clear about being about music and not about movies or book (apple has another service for that). Spotify strategy for the future is to give you with just a subsctiption music, movies, books, podcasts, video games (while apple, amazon etc.. have different services). They used musicians to became big and now they're betraying them to switch to other things. When Taylor called them a "a start up with no money, an experiment with no guarantees for music artists, especially the little ones" you all where here to say "she didn't accept the future" too for sure. Edited October 25, 2023 by vale9001 1 1
barbiegrande Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 20 minutes ago, Trent W said: 200 plays is way too low But honestly Spotify is rigged af I think that any artist signed to a BIG label should be dragged these days We need to consume more artists that build themselves Label artists are most of the time nepo babies with no talent that are bought their success especially these days. If we supported more independent acts the quality will go up in an insane way overall. What current mainstream act was a nepobaby?
Newt Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 As someone who's uneducated about the situation, I'm sort of shocked that an American corporation is legally allowed to just simply withold payments based on a threshold.
dumbsparce Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 5 minutes ago, Newt said: As someone who's uneducated about the situation, I'm sort of shocked that an American corporation is legally allowed to just simply withold payments based on a threshold. Wait, isn't Spotify swedish?
Newt Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 Just now, dumbsparce said: Wait, isn't Spotify swedish? Derp, thanks for the correction. I guess I just haven't heard of a business model like that in America. Maybe this is a non-issue with certain regulations
Happylittlepunk Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 I don’t understand is there no way a chance that labels can unite and force legislation on stricter rules for music consumption? Like Japan and South Korea do so that artist can get paid.
byzantium Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 I’m getting tired of these tech companies coming in and completely changing an industry without any plan to be profitable. 2
gotportugal Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Indie Go Mind said: Oh then the headline is a bit more sensationalized. 200 shouldn't be a big hindrance. it's 48 cents anually tho who has 100% royalties its so nothing 1
stevyy Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 1 hour ago, X~MoviePoP said: It starts at 200 and then itll be 1k and then 5k...lbr, there shouldnt be a threshold at all 200 streams is nothing. 1,000 would also still be OK. But for the sake of Elizabeth Chan - The undisputed and official Queen of Christmas - 5,000 streams would be overkill.
stevyy Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 5 minutes ago, byzantium said: I’m getting tired of these tech companies coming in and completely changing an industry without any plan to be profitable. The music industry used to be a cash machine... and still is... however, people decided that music has no value and therefore artists have no value either... it's not a new concept... it was introduced to us in 1999 when Napster went online. Music content creators are the lowest form of the entertainment brand and WE - the consumers - made them that. It's hypocritical to scream fire now... while the house had burnt down 24 years ago. There is no "real" other way now to make money as a professional recording artist - especially not in the league who would have a hard time reaching 200 streams. WE the conumers pushed them to where they are and now we or you or anyone wants to put the blame on the streaming platforms... that's stupid and idiotic. IF we want our acts to make money... like if we would even care one bit... we would buy their CDs or LPs and churn out $1000 for a shitty concert ticket. BUT we will not... why? Because music is for free... it's a commodity that has no price value... like it's too cheap to get one... it's not like a LV bag or sth... it's like used up diapers in a playground parking lot bin. So, ladies and gens... put on your big boi pants and go to your local record store to purchase a physical music product or ... continue to keep your music favs on the brink of starving. 2
popmusic Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 Some people are extremely dumb. The minimum streams treshold is like 200 streams per track per year. Also, this is not a Spotify idea (they'll still pay the same total amout to the rightholders) but the labels. 2
popmusic Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 59 minutes ago, Newt said: As someone who's uneducated about the situation, I'm sort of shocked that an American corporation is legally allowed to just simply withold payments based on a threshold. Spotify is swedish.
makeme Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 Capitalist pop stars are NOT going to remove their music for flops. 1
BnPac Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 (edited) That’s unfortunate but it can happen because no one backed the big artists who tried before. Them and the customers accepted the notion that music had no value and we shouldn’t pay for it. So here we are. Taylor was alone when she did that and she dragged. Beyoncé was dragged. And Tidal was insulted and ridiculed because of the cringe video when their system pays artists better and the sound system is also better. Despite Madonna, Daft Punk and other huge artists being on board. Joni Mitchell also did it and nothing happened. So it’s too late, no one will care. Nothing will change. Those small artists will still leave their music there even if the biggest go. Edited October 25, 2023 by BnPac 1
Happylittlepunk Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 1 hour ago, stevyy said: The music industry used to be a cash machine... and still is... however, people decided that music has no value and therefore artists have no value either... it's not a new concept... it was introduced to us in 1999 when Napster went online. Music content creators are the lowest form of the entertainment brand and WE - the consumers - made them that. It's hypocritical to scream fire now... while the house had burnt down 24 years ago. There is no "real" other way now to make money as a professional recording artist - especially not in the league who would have a hard time reaching 200 streams. WE the conumers pushed them to where they are and now we or you or anyone wants to put the blame on the streaming platforms... that's stupid and idiotic. IF we want our acts to make money... like if we would even care one bit... we would buy their CDs or LPs and churn out $1000 for a shitty concert ticket. BUT we will not... why? Because music is for free... it's a commodity that has no price value... like it's too cheap to get one... it's not like a LV bag or sth... it's like used up diapers in a playground parking lot bin. So, ladies and gens... put on your big boi pants and go to your local record store to purchase a physical music product or ... continue to keep your music favs on the brink of starving. Amen you spilled fans are also to blaim they decided to not spend money on music and just decided as a collective to stream music only or illegally download it. Instead of buying physical copies and digital downloads of their favorite artist music.
Rev8 Posted October 25, 2023 Posted October 25, 2023 3 hours ago, Carry My Heart said: The threshold is 200 streams, it really isn't that big of a deal. And 99.5% of all uploaded works won't be affected. Where does it say 200 streams? Also..is this 200 streams for 1 song or the whole artist's catalogue?
Recommended Posts