this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2024
140 points (91.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36175 readers
915 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

We all know the music industry isn’t in a good place right now. Sales are down and artist are not happy. So it made me think? Why don’t the Big 3 (Universal, Warner & Sony) just come together and make their own streaming service with all their music, instead of sharing profits with Spotify and Apple Music? I don’t get it.

Film/TV industries have their own dedicated services like Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, etc. They don’t have a middle man taking a cut like Cable. Obviously, the Big 3 would need to come together to make this happen. Having 1 music service strictly for just 1 of them is a bad idea.

I just think Spotify & Apple are benefitting from this way more than the labels. And with Spotify paying HUGE amounts to the likes of Joe Rogan 😒. It’s kind of a slap in the face of the industry that MADE them this big. Like why is the Talk Tuah podcast getting just as big of bags as the labels & Artist? I know Jay Z tried his own service ran strictly by the artist called Tidal like 10 years ago, but he couldn’t get enough big artist to invest into it long term.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me why the Music Industry allows this?

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] small44@lemmy.world 136 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Actually it the labels who are taking advantages of the streaming services without mentioning profiting from artists they manage. When negotiating deals with streaming services like Spotify or Apple Music, labels often demand large advances. These funds are typically non-recoupable, labels keep this money regardless of how well the music performs on the platform.

All major labels performed very well this year financially. It is really artists themselves who suffers

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ohhh. You know, that makes sense. It felt like a stupid question asking how LABELS would allow themselves to screwed over, but once again, they aren’t the ones getting screwed over.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 35 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Fun fact: if you're an artist on Spotify receiving less than 1000 streams in a year, they won't even bother paying you. You also need a minimum number of unique listeners. That number is secret.

Spotify is good for those already rich, and bad for those who isn't.

They also have Joe Rogan and Gwyneth Paltrow on their payroll, and they actively lobby for more relaxed AI legislatiolegislation in the EU.

If you have a subscription, the best thing you van do is to cancel it, get your music from the high seas, and instead donate $12 per month or however much it costs directly to artists you enjoy by buying their music or merch online.

AntennaPod is good for podcasts.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bandcamp is a good option for directly supporting artists for the time being, especially if you queue up all your purchases for a Bandcamp Friday, where artists/labels receive all the money rather than BC taking their 20% cut.

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Bandcamp is a good option for directly supporting artists for the time being, especially if you queue up all your purchases for a Bandcamp Friday, where artists/labels receive all the money rather than BC taking their 20% cut.

Not just a good option, but the best option I know of. If you buy an album for $5, that's equivalent to the earnings for thousands of plays on Spotify. And that would be assuming the artist even gets enough total Spotify plays to qualify for their payout under the new rules.

They are stealing from artists who bring business to the platform, and using the guise of protecting themselves from bot streamers. Oh, and they recently raised the subscription price by 25% in my country. Spotify was the most satisfying subscription to cancel that I have ever cancelled.

They're also being accused of pushing their own AI-generated slop music so that they have to pay out even less to real artists. Fuck Spotify.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Spotify is pushing AI generated music now!? Do they have no damn shame? These platforms and labels are NOTHING without the artist.

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's not confirmed afaik, but there is big motive behind it for Spotify to flood listeners with artists they don't have to pay.

There's also the apparent problem of third parties uploading AI slop. Spotify is putting in minimum listener requirements to supposedly deal with this, but what it will do instead is it choke out real small artists, and the AI artists will just get botted above the minimum pay threshold. To me, this gives Spotify even more motive than before to dilute all artists on the platform with their own AI music. They already make deals with large labels and podcasters, they don't care about the other 90% of artists who eat at their bottom line.

"Spotify ... anticipates reaching profitability for the full year in 2024, which would mark the company's first full profitable year since it launched 18 years ago."

Interesting that they anticipate a full year of profit when there is this "AI problem" plaguing them. How convenient it would be if it turned out to be their own AI artists they don't have to pay.

"Ek said moving forward, Spotify will be more disciplined about how it spends money. "You should not expect that we're going to go back to 2021 behavior. We want to be very resourceful," he said. "

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/13/spotify-projects-first-full-year-of-profitability-ever

This video shows some AI artist profiles and talks about it more:

Da Colinata - Spotify's MASSIVE Fake AI Scandal

For anyone reading this who's put off by the prices, I ditched Spotify and started exclusively buying music on Bandcamp. Apart from an initial splurge, I've ended up paying less for music each month. And I own that music permanently. And they got paid more. YMMV of course especially if you're somebody who doesn't relisten much, but seeing an album on Bandcamp that costs as much as a month's Spotify subscription shouldn't put you off.

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

While that is true, even independent artists who don't have a label grabbing all the profits still get shafted, earning next to nothing with streams.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

You are right

[–] TwanHE@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Spotify is the only reason I don't pirate 99% of my music (the other 1% is still played through it). Would go back to creating my own library

[–] macattack@lemmy.world 40 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

IIRC, the music industry was in decline long before Spotify was made. The transition period before Spotify was just illegally downloading everything through Limewire/Kazaa/Napster etc.

Also, the reason podcasts make money is because they can produce something that brings audiences in on a weekly basis. The music industry OTOH has artists that make an album a year or less. It's not as sustainable and it's harder to sell ads against.

I don't think more segmentation is a wanted solution by consumers either. Consumers would much rather use one app for all platforms than have to buy a different streaming service every time they want to listen to a new album.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah the '90s was the big heyday for the music industry when they used to charge us $25 (in 1990s dollars, $48 today) for a CD with 2 good songs and a bunch of filler. That ended quickly as, like you said, Napster and the like came on scene. Then we got the iPod and iTunes and a slew of 'ringtone companies' where you could buy songs individually for a dollar or two until streaming took off.

They've never recovered to the level they were at back then because there are just too many options now and they don't control them all.

[–] Kelly@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/music-industry-revenues-by-format/

Nothing has been as big as CDs but total revenue has been growing since 2015.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Wow, that stretch from 2010 - 2015 must’ve been brutal before streaming popped off.

[–] TheProtagonist@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

What do the scales below and above the timeline represent? There's no explanation of the data displayed.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The total height represents sales of each format in relation to the others. The timeline isn't the zero line like you might be thinking. $0 would be the bottom of the graph at any given time.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Effectively a stacked bar chart/area chart, but with "pizzaz" that makes it less readable.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago

I suppose, but I think it's a really nice visual that gets the point across just fine for this level of discussion.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Why don’t the Big 3 (Universal, Warner & Sony) just come together and make their own streaming service with all their music,

Careful what you wish for. It's long been a concern of mine that we'll see a fragmentation of the music streaming market, with the same results as in TV.

You know how one show you like is on Disney+ and one is on Netflix and two are on Amazon, and one is on Paramount and so on...? Result is you either miss shows or pay a fortune.

Imagine that with your favourite bands, except you need a Warner subscription to listen to one band, a Sony one to listen to another, etc.

It's bad enough with some things not being on one music service while they are on another one, or with songs being there and then gone and then back again for utterly opaque reasons. If the labels get the idea that they can cut out the middle man and gate off their artists from any service but their own, it'll be awful.

[–] imsufferableninja@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

there's a solution to the streaming fragmentation problem: piracy. i don't watch diz+ and para+ and netflix; i just go to Plex or jellyfin

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

I guess, but for your average consumer that's not going to be an attractive option.

[–] castlebravo404@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 2 weeks ago

Result is you either miss shows or pay a fortune.

Or you go back to sailing the high seas.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I noted that in the post. It’s even in the quote. “Come together”. Nobody wants multiple subscriptions lol.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, I know, but I feel like execs are more likely to want to go it alone and have exclusive artists than have to work out a way to share with each other.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

We’ve seen it in movies; we’ve seen it in gaming; we saw it starting in music right around when Apple stepped in with the iTunes music store, and then the music execs saw an uptick they didn’t want to lose. When Apple pivoted to streaming, they no longer had much of a say; ClearChannel/iHeartRadio had already consolidated OTA streaming and they had nowhere left to go.

It’s much easier to prevent the likes of Netflix than to stand up a united opposition to it and succeed — especially with the spectre of monopoly regulation sitting back stage.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There were attempts at trying to create a label specific streaming site that failed miserably. If no one was going to sign up for Tidal, they weren't going to sign up for a Sony site.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Well hopefully not. I didn't know it had been tried before, that's interesting.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They own a big chunk (possibly a majority) of Spotify and extract hefty licensing fees from it. (Spotify moving into podcasting was apparently intended to find a market in which they could keep the profits.) The majors get far better licensing terms than indie labels or small artists would get, because they have the whip hand: Spotify has no choice but to pay up as not to become a platform without Taylor Swift/Ed Sheeran/Baby Shark/etc., which would effectively wipe them out.

Make no mistake, the three major labels (Warner, Sony and Universal) are reaping the vast majority of profits from Spotify.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh, thank you for informing me. So it’s actually the labels screwing everyone else over?

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 2 points 2 weeks ago

It has been since the dawn of the recording industry

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 13 points 2 weeks ago

The film/TV industry splitting into 5+ services wasn't a good thing. Advocating for the same system for music could be good for artists but would suck for consumers.

[–] _NetNomad@fedia.io 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

i see a lot of comments saying how the current situation is better than if streaming platforms became fragmented like TV, but part of why streaming services for TV became so popular is because TV and movies are things you don't often return to- aside from a few favorites, you might watch a show or a movie only once every five or ten years, whereas you listen to your favorite music over and over and over again. imo if Spotify were to collapse, it's less likely that people would shell out a fortune for WB+ and Sony+ and more likely that they would just go back to buying an album every month or two, which is a win win because it's cheaper for them and way more money going to the artist. hell, even if 98% of people just went back to limewire and 2% started buying music again, that's still ultimately way more money for artists

[–] TheProtagonist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Correct, the main selling point for music streaming services is about having one place where you can find all your favourite music. It's acceptable if you don't find all the Star Wars stuff on Netflix - you can either watch other shows or movies instead or subsribe to Disney until you've seen it all, but a music streaming service with only the content of one or two major labels would probably be less attractive for many people, because they would only get a limited amount of music / artists. Also for the record companies it could mean higher cost (for maIntaining their own streaming service) and potentially lower profits.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The graph is comparing two different things.

[–] guy@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes. One is the amount of music sales, the other the amount of Spotify.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 6 points 2 weeks ago

The rental economy calls to us and we must go...

[–] justhach@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Because the alternative is trying to stay in a dying physical medium (CDs), a nice physical medium (LPs), or accepting piracy.

Streaming was a compromise to allow record labels to sell access to music at a bulk cost so that they can continue to exist.

[–] Ugurcan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I won’t argue with streaming services go fuck themselves but music industry’s not being in a good place also deeply related with there are shit megaton quadrillion musicians spawning everyday now. And most of them are pretty good!

Making music got easier by decade and it’s around 500$ to have all kinds of tech and instruments better than what Radiohead used in Kid A, and learning resources are way more accessible now.

Total music related spending (vinyls, merch, tickets) skyrocketed compared to 80s or 90s as well, but it’s also split between 100 million artists, and not 100.000. Yet the listener headcount only doubled or tripled.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Making music got easier by decade and it’s around 500$ to have all kinds of tech and instruments better than what Radiohead used in Kid A, and it’s way more accessible to access to learning resources.

People forget the part. The garage bands who couldn't possibly make it in the 90s can now release their own music without a label. I'm just a drunk and I've got music out there that was mostly recorded in a closet. Anyone can put stuff out and try to find their audience.

The other thing a lot of folks forget is that most bands never made much from album sales. Only the top tiny percent did, even among a lot of famous bands. Musicians have always out there killing themselves on the road to make money on ticket sales and merch.

[–] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I love KidA ❤️

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Listeners have gone up?

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

As someone who remembers the time before spotify: people were pirating alot so legal streaming was the way to end this but giving a usable alternative

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

If the big 3 get together, artists will get less, pure and simple