this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
514 points (89.9% liked)

Technology

60056 readers
3562 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 119 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Man, a lot of people here don't understand how the music industry works. From the perspective of someone who's been loosely following the music industry, what I've learned is that it doesn't matter if Spotify gave up 2/3rds of their revenue, or 100% of it, the artists would still make fuck all.

Why?

The labels love taking their cuts and as a result, artists make very little. Instead of taking the blame for giving artists a <10% cut of the label's revenue from their music (my understanding is that it's pretty common for musicians to get <10%, sometimes <5% if you're on a particularly shitty label), the labels are blaming platforms like Spotify.

Now, I'm not saying that Spotify is blameless, however I think there's a lot of misdirection from the labels going on. I don't remember anyone complaining about pre-spotify services like Pandora Radio for not paying out enough when they were largely ad-supported, which is another reason I'm not totally buying the, "it's cause it's free" argument either.

Fuck, remember Pandora?

[–] spacebirb@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Labels are an outdated concept that needs to die. Now that you can find any music from just a quick search artists shouldn't have to rely on them, at least not as heavily, for advertising.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

There was a very, very brief moment from about 2005 to 2011 or so where there was money to be made directly by artists on iTunes or the other music stores where the tracks were like 99 cents each.

But people stopped buying as soon as Spotify became popular, and now any artist that wants to release on Spotify without a label still doesn't make much money.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Relatively “large” truly independent bands like KNOWER are starting to give true home recording a base of proof of functionality.

Power to bandcamp.

[–] downhomechunk@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

You've got my heart working overtime. Louis Cole is a monster.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Artists aren't forced to sign a contract with a label. They do it because they want to.

They do it because the label will often invest a million dollars in the artist upfront before the songs are even available for the public to stream.

Good recording studios are expensive to hire. And if you want a video track to go with it... those are even worse.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ehh, you've got a different but similar problem these days. Before, it was hard to get the word out so even finding new bands was difficult. Now, there are so many artists that you've got to find a way to stand out. Still need marketing. That's what labels provide.

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need to give up the rights to your music to a third party for them to do marketing or handling legal matters for you. You just need to pay them for their services. And you should be able to choose from several competitors in the market, based on what they offer and what you want/need/can afford. So yeah, record labels shouldn't exist anymore.

[–] nihth@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not needed, but for some reason artists keep signing, so there is probably something they provide that makes it worth it

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's because it's the only game in town.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Indies are on sporify too. Spotify pays them shit too. Label or not.

[–] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They just changed the rules so that if smaller artists don't get a certain number of plays they don't even get a payout.

[–] GenEcon@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

With less than 1000 streams per year.

This is solely to kick out the AI generated music, which is already taking a significant share of the payout from the musicians.

This change is not against smaller artists, but for them.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I kind of call bullshit on that take.

There's definitely AI generated music that can surpass 1000 streams per year and many real bands that cannot.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Less than 1000 streams is like a band being unable to fill up a 100-person venue for a 10-song set once in a year (for the kind of band that plays live gigs). Opening acts for obscure bands play more than that. If you're that unpopular, you're hardly a band at all.

They didn't say all AI generated music gets less than 1000 streams; they implied most of it does.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But then are you implying that those bands that are that unpopular are undeserving of getting paid even a little? Because they're not a "real" band?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stuff that nobody wants to listen to just takes up space and clutters up searches, making it harder for people to find the stuff they actually want. It had negative value for the platform and for users. That's why they went the AI stuff gone. If a few actual bands miss out on a few dollars of revenue as a result of Spotify getting rid of the outright junk, I'm not gonna shed a tear over it.

[–] t0fr@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don't have to shed a tear. But I find your take incredibly harsh on bands that are trying to start out and find their audience.

Eliminating low quality AI content is desirable for me as well, but nuking even more incentive for bands that are starting out is the wrong thing to do in IMHO

[–] GenEcon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Even if you are starting out thousands streams is nothing. I have a few friends who have a band. Its really small, basically everyone who listens to them knows them personally. They have 20 monthly listeners, but almost all of their songs on their own have 1.000 yearly streams – because Spotify puts them randomly into their automatically generated playlists.

Meanwhile kicking all the 'bands' out with less than 1000 streams allows them to pay the rest more.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I don't actually know anything about where bands are supposed to find an audience, but I don't think bands who haven't found an audience should expect to get paid, the same way I don't expect to get paid for going to a job interview or engaging in a hobby. If a band doesn't have an audience they can reliably entertain, what they're doing is self promotion for their own benefit, not entertainment for the benefit of an audience.

[–] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I thought it was 2,000?

[–] raptir@lemdro.id 7 points 1 year ago

Pandora didn't replace buying music. They did not add the "on demand streaming" option until after Spotify was prevalent.

[–] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I still use pandora free daily!

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Lots of people still use, and even pay for, Pandora.