This is a really good and thought provoking article, but in major artists such as Neil’s and Joni’s cases, doesn’t Spotify contract with their labels rather than directly with the artist? In that case, you could argue that the labels treat streaming as just another distribution format like CDs and vinyl, and therefore the labels are shorting the artists by not recouping their investments and getting better deals with the streamers.
Although I appreciate the outreach and activism displayed by the two musicians..this headline was not that interesting to me at the end of the day. Joni and Niel have made their millions and can afford to lose the coverage that Spotify provides. In that sense, the gesture becomes empty rather quickly. However, there is so much to highlight within its business that is problematic, thank you for addressing this. Any avid user pays for Spotify though**
> Had Spotify sided with Neil, the music hosted on their platform would still be "valueless". Neil was not pulling his music to protest for fair compensation for musicians. In fact Neil seems to care about that very little, as he has previously gone on record to say that performing artists should not even go on tour [1], the thing that in the before-times netted the vast majority of their income, so long as pandemic persists.
> In fact it's kind of insulting to struggling musicians that this controversy has absolutely nothing to do with artist compensation, the lack of which being the primary controversy of the platform before this convenient dust-up.
Thank you for this. I’ve long understood Spotify isn’t about the music. That’s why I have Tidal and would never switch. Just take one a look at their interface - you can’t even play a album or make a playlist without them manipulating it. But I do have the app because I listen to a couple of podcasts through it.
The irony of the people that complain about streaming services and their mistreatment of artists by purportedly not valuing music and the artists that produce it is that these same people will subscribe to premium services for a very nominal fee to stream as much music as they want, for the cheapest price possible, rather than buying the music as a download or physical album to support the artist directly. That is the true test of an individuals value of music and the artists that produce it. Music is a business and a cutthroat one at that. And, some artists think way more highly of themselves than they ought.
This is a really good and thought provoking article, but in major artists such as Neil’s and Joni’s cases, doesn’t Spotify contract with their labels rather than directly with the artist? In that case, you could argue that the labels treat streaming as just another distribution format like CDs and vinyl, and therefore the labels are shorting the artists by not recouping their investments and getting better deals with the streamers.
Interesting, is there something individuals can do? Or recommended legislation
Although I appreciate the outreach and activism displayed by the two musicians..this headline was not that interesting to me at the end of the day. Joni and Niel have made their millions and can afford to lose the coverage that Spotify provides. In that sense, the gesture becomes empty rather quickly. However, there is so much to highlight within its business that is problematic, thank you for addressing this. Any avid user pays for Spotify though**
Didn't Spotify as a company managed to get 70% of their revenue to rights holders[1]? How does it compare to other distributors?
[1] https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/how-much-does-spotify-pay-per-stream
I found a comment about this blog from HN interesting, just cite it here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=30251495&goto=item%3Fid%3D30250677%2330251495
> Had Spotify sided with Neil, the music hosted on their platform would still be "valueless". Neil was not pulling his music to protest for fair compensation for musicians. In fact Neil seems to care about that very little, as he has previously gone on record to say that performing artists should not even go on tour [1], the thing that in the before-times netted the vast majority of their income, so long as pandemic persists.
> In fact it's kind of insulting to struggling musicians that this controversy has absolutely nothing to do with artist compensation, the lack of which being the primary controversy of the platform before this convenient dust-up.
> 1. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-young-concerts-in-covid-age-these-are-super-spreader-events-1217933/
This is the current model for the Internet ... most creative people work for peanuts to support people with junk bond morality.
Thank you for this. I’ve long understood Spotify isn’t about the music. That’s why I have Tidal and would never switch. Just take one a look at their interface - you can’t even play a album or make a playlist without them manipulating it. But I do have the app because I listen to a couple of podcasts through it.
The irony of the people that complain about streaming services and their mistreatment of artists by purportedly not valuing music and the artists that produce it is that these same people will subscribe to premium services for a very nominal fee to stream as much music as they want, for the cheapest price possible, rather than buying the music as a download or physical album to support the artist directly. That is the true test of an individuals value of music and the artists that produce it. Music is a business and a cutthroat one at that. And, some artists think way more highly of themselves than they ought.