When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.
By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.
Stop using this shitty service. There are much better options. I like Tidal, but even Apple music seems decent compared to Spotify.
The audio quality alone should be telling people just how bad spotify is.
Does Tidal pay artists better?
Two to three times what Spotify pay artists per stream.
I dunno. Spotify stopped billing me for the family plan I was paying for some years ago and at this point I’ve got five accounts mooching off of them and I’m using powershell to download gigabytes worth of music off of them…
Like, Spotify is evil but at this point I’m a negative number for them every month. I’m gonna keep on going until they decide to shut off the hose.
Oh, but I do go to concerts and buy records.
If I still used Apple products I’d still be using Apple Music. Good sound with the ability to upload my own music library to mesh with it seamlessly to cover the gaps of what wasn’t available? It was my ideal music streaming service.
Now I’m on Deezer but every streaming service has gaps in their catalog for what I listen to.
Slowly working on getting my own music library together to get rid of streaming services entirely. Plan on using Plex for now, but eventually I’ll just move to a phone that has an SD card slot.
Mix of purchases and stuff downloaded and saved from Deezer.
Capitalism!!! USA!! USA!! USA!! 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲 You poor fucks don’t deserve music.
I think spotify is swedish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotify
Do you know how strong of a country you have to be to make another live to your standards?
I think capitalism has already prevailed before America is the dominant force in it.
I’m just gonna keep exploiting the 3 month free trial with all my accounts. I still have my own local library as well.
dibbidens
Just download music from 3rd party sites. Not that hard, don’t understand why you are complaining so much.
Yeah I’m done with spotify.
Back when it was a fiver, I could get the appeal and had a subscription myself.
At 11 bucks it comes at the price of a CD per month, every month. I didn’t buy that much music annually, ever. So right now we are entering a territory where streaming is exceeding the price of my regular music consumption patterns. I’ll go back to buying physical media and torrenting whatever old stuff is no longer available and can’t be found on ebay.
Fuck 'em with a cactus.
I don’t subscribe, bit I wouldn’t think about it compared to the price of physical media. I would compare it to satellite radio. Or cable radio. (Does Spectrum still do that?)
All three are paid, ad-free radio, sorta, though streaming services are on-demand.
I typically like to just buy my music but the appeal of spotify, to me, is the algorithm and being able to play random singles and one offs from artists I would probably not ever hear a single thing from otherwise.
I like bandcamp a lot more than spotify for finding new music. A lot of it feels less soulless because it is (presumably) written by real people.
https://daily.bandcamp.com/essential-releases/essential-releases-may-10-2024 - timely https://daily.bandcamp.com/lists/japanese-acid-folk-list - genre deep dive
Plus on a given album page, like https://castleratband.bandcamp.com/album/into-the-realm-2 , it has links to “Other people liked this”, and the genre tags. It’s pretty good for discoverability, though maybe not as smooth as the soulless algorithms of spotify.
Bandcamp sold to epic and then got sold to some other vultures so they might turn to shit, but until that happens it’s a good, profitable, seemingly equitable platform. Artists got a big cut, you got drm-free music. The idea seems solid, if you can avoid the “infinite growth at all costs” and “i’m gonna sell out, fuck you” traps.
The very great and very funny singer Neko Case made a playlist on Spotify and entitled it “PAY FOR IT YOU CHEAP PRICKS!!!” I howled.
I’ve heard good things about tidal in regards to paying artists (more) fairly. Does anyone know more about the alternatives or has experience with them? Also in terms of the library size I’m not sure how the services compare…
I love my Tidal subscription. Most everything that’s on Spotify is on Tidal now unless it’s an exclusive. Most annoying part will be tranferring your playlists
I believe tidal actually has a larger library than Spotify, and offers a tier that lets you listen to higher quality of music. Similar pricing to Spotify I think. I had it for a while and really liked it, only stopped paying for it because I’m broke so I’m sailing the seas for now
Spotify can die in a fire for all I care. Sail the high seas and if you like an artist buy physical releases/merch/tickets.
So instead of having the artists make the small per stream income, you suggest they get $0? Buying their releases/merch/tickets is irrelevant to the platform. If anything, the model of these streaming platforms is just further shifting to advertisement for artists to drive people to shows.
you suggest they get $0?
They make more from what I suggested than they do from Spotify.
Of course they do, but those suggested options are the same for Spotify users too. I’m not seeing the connection here unless you’re saying Spotify users are less likely to buy merch or tickets. Pirate what you want, but trying to spin the argument this way is just disingenuous.
Edit: and to add to this, I would argue that platforms like Spotify and other subscription models are key ways for new people to be introduced to a bad. (Short of having your song blow up on something like Tik Tok of course)
Pirate what you want, but trying to spin the argument this way is just disingenuous.
I’m not following you. Spotify is notorious for paying out very little to artists, so therefore they don’t deserve my business, fuck 'em.
Instead I like to support the artists directly.
As to your second point, I’ve never had a problem discovering new music.
My point is people saying “Spotify doesn’t pay artists enough so just pirate everything” is disingenuous. Nothing about paying for a platform (Spotify, TIDAL, Apple, YouTube, etc.) precludes you from supporting artists through other means as well.
The second point didn’t imply that this is the o ly way to discover music, but it absolutely is an avenue where many people discover new artists.
They suck ass. Stop paying them money.
No matter what you think about Apple, Apple Music pays multiple times more than Spotify
And Tidal pays multiples more than Apple.
It’s up to you if you want to support artists or not.
I switched to Tidal after Spotify announced the price increase. The catalogue is basically identical, the apps are much more intuitive, and the audio quality is higher (they recently rolled their premium FLAC subscription into the basic one).
I had to retrain the algorithm for a bit, but that was not so difficult. There are services that can migrate/convert playlists which might actually work for favourites as well.
Also, it’s easy easier to download stuff from Tidal, which is very nice for listening to Audiobooks with a dedicated player.
I mean, Spotify is a great service for the consumer. One reasonable monthly fee for most of the music in the world.
If a similar video streaming service existed for 40€/month, I’d pay for it in a heartbeat. Now I have a plethora of arr apps and a vpn, and Plex. But it’s a hassle sometimes.
We’re all aware of the issues it created for the artists, and I’d be willing to double the fee if that money directly went to the artists, but this is where the capitalist model fails, as that won’t maximize the profits for shareholders.
If we ever come up with a way to fix the underlying greed models that come with publicly traded companies, that would be great.
As it stands, it is what it is, but I’m glad we have this, instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.
Is there a median breakdown of the split on Spotify. How much the artist get, the label and Spotify. I get that the split between artists and labels could probably vary a lot. But I get the feeling that Spotify aren’t the only one whos beeing greedy
You’d be correct
I’d pay 40€ a month for an officially licensed private torrent tracker. If they gave discounts based on the amount seeded I doubt they would even need the stupidly expensive infrastructure.
I don’t even have the arr stack because it’s cheaper, just because it’s more convenient and no one can take it away from me
Maybe it’s because my schema for torrents is dichotomous with licensed uses, but I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this.
Is the distinction you’re making here between your proposed ‘licensed private tracker’ and something like a subscription-based catalogue (à la Audible) simply the way it’s distributed (in this case a centralized vs peer-to-peer)?
I like the idea of distributed media networks, but I really doubt any copyright owner would go for a distribution network that they don’t have any level of control over. The idea of an ‘officially licensed private torrent tracker’ seems incompatible with how that industry works.
I’d happily pay for an unlicensed private torrent tracker, though.
Totally agree, they’ll never go for that. I meant licensed as in that the media is being legally distributed. But they wouldn’t go for it as it would mean that customers might have an amount of ownership.
The distinction is that the private tracker is legal to run, as you’d be paying the licence holder for the ability to torrent using their private tracker.
I like the Audible idea of “you have X amount of GB a month that you can download, and you can pay more for more GB”. It gives the customer a reason to keep paying, and therefore allow the business to exist.
Licence is probably the wrong word as I’m not anywhere near an expert on this
The greed isn’t inherent in the system, in the humans. We have to fix our self-serving nature first.
Oh yes why fix economic system when we can just defeat human nature. Great idea that’ll be much easier.
facepalm we are literally the same species of Homo sapiens we have been for thousands of years, the problem is most certainly inherent in the system and we need to smash the system and make something kinder.
I’m glad we have this, instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.
What would be wrong with a model where artists had their own website where they could distribute their music? That’s what Faircamp does. Then people could actually download it, rather than use a companies crappy client with DRM.
I was referring to the sharding that happened with video streaming services. It used to be Netflix had mostly everything, in the start, similar to Spotify. Now there are services per publisher that contain their own catalogues.
Fuck. That.
So you’d rather a monopoly?
Spotify isn’t the only service currently.
Like I said in my op: it’s good service for the consumer. It might not be if enshittification ensues.
But compared to video streaming, it’s awesome.
The issue isn’t the service model, but the capitalistic shit behind it, that attempts to maximize profits instead of paying artists fairly.
Like I said in my op: it’s good service for the consumer. It might not be if enshittification ensues.
Are you seriously throwing might into this sentence?
I suppose you could say when you throw a ball up in the air it might come back down but that is kind of being disingenuous isn’t it.
Here’s another thought, doesn’t it impact the quality of the service for the consumer if the workers doing the labor to create the substance of the service, the basic thing that gives the service value to customers, are not being rewarded in a sustainable fashion for their time and labor?
Do you really think all your favorite artists are going to keep cranking out music in this environment? More importantly, do you think your favorite artists would have ever been able to invest the time and effort to get big enough to become that 1% of the successful musicians if the environment they began in was as hostile towards musicians earning money as it is now?
The amount of quality recorded music being released is going to plummet as musicians just stop bothering to do it. We will look back on the 2000s-2010s as a golden era where music production tools were distributed and affordable but venture capital hadn’t yet destroyed the ability of up and coming recording artists and audio engineers to actually devote the time and focus to becoming professional.
At least 50% of the bands I’ve seen, toured with, or heard don’t record music to make money. There’s just too much music for it to be dependable income. They do it because they wanna share something neat with their friends. They upload it to sites like Spotify or a decade ago MySpace or a decade before that zines so other people can find cool shit. If they get lucky, that stumble upon nets a shirt sale which actually nets the band some income.
The sweeping generalizations you’re making do not apply. Stop trying to make music about money.
Edit: mailing tapes was a thing a few decades ago. Are you saying I ripped off those folks because I wanted friends on one coast to hear shit friends on the other coast recorded? That’s a really fucking hard DIY tour to build. You’re fucking Skinner saying all us kids are wrong.
…what?
Are you angry at me for saying your friends were still getting underpaid for their labor even back then?
To answer you thought: it would not. Great majority of artists aren’t doing it for money, so nothing would change for most of the artists. You have bias, probably because the tiny minority that does sustain their lives with it are so loud.
Jay Z and Britney would probably quit, but I don’t mind.
Spotify is a great service for the consumer. One reasonable monthly fee for most of the music in the world.
Plus ads.
instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.
I was perfectly happy with Napster, before it got blown up.
As it stands, I’ve been leaning on SoundCloud and Bandcamp when I’m hunting for something indie and pirating or going vinyl for anything mainstream.
Spotify’s model is doomed to fail over time. Far better to own the media than stream it.
Not sure about the ads? If you mean when the app notifies you about live gigs etc. then yeah, that’s shittification. Luckily it doesn’t happen on my desk or car, but I wish it didn’t sometimes appear on my phone. That’s the one thing that might push me to add music to my video streaming arr stack.
Certain content (podcasts, most notably) insert ads into the feed above and beyond what Spotify Premium ostensibly removes. There’s also Spotify’s persistent need to blow up your phone with notifications and bloat your in-app screen, but at least some of that you can silence manually.
My wife has Spotify and she’s noticed the increased pressure to be always-online, as well. We were on a flight, and she’s got her take-off chill music, when she discovered putting the phone in airplane mood before starting up the app caused a bunch of bugs in her selection screen. Which - in the middle of a take-off that she did not enjoy - fucking sucked.
The service is definitely getting worse over time. And when you can keep an enormous library of music locally, the service becomes harder and harder to justify imho.
I’m perfectly happen to send $30/mo to Patreon for a few of my favorite artists. $12/mo for Spotify just feels like money down a well.
I’m not familiar with the free tier, but if you don’t pay anything, I think ads are fine.
Paying and seeing ads is wrong on the other hand.
Spotify’s model is doomed to fail over time.
This right here. At the very least, unless they are not beholden to shareholders, it will eventually reach market saturation and will have to cut artists’ share, hike prices up, or add more paywalls to keep the line going up
In 2023, Taylor Swift got $100 million from Spotify. How much should she get?
Not sure what the relevance of this comment was, considering what I said
Patch your spotify install to get free premium. If they’re gonna raise prices and lower what they pay musicians, there’s no valid reason not to.
Doesn’t make me feel guilty using Soulseek. Artists get next to nothing but I’m refusing to give any money to Spotify. If there was a better way to buy and own music digitally from popular artists I would
Bandcamp
I mean high end artists not indie
high end artists don’t need your money, they’re funded already and corporate productions in the first place. So i guess you’re in the clear! ;)
Unironically iTunes
What does high end mean?
I assume professinol music that’s good. Not amuture sounding music.
And this is why I refuse to listen to ads or pay for spotify.
If I were an artist at this point I’d half rather the listener just steal the record. At least then you’re not giving the money to Spotify if you aren’t going to pay for it outright.
