Nice to see a longer form essay here, what a welcome change from social media! I feel like there’s an even simpler solution…any artist who opposes Spotify for whatever reason and has full control of their catalogue should simply not upload their music to Spotify. Most independent artists can just upload elsewhere and let their audience know.
If Spotify is not paying enough and not creating any value for the artist then what is the risk?
I’d love to to know what others think, but it seems totally doable….
TGM! I am not adverse to that approach whatsoever. The biggest deterrent I see is that Spotify continues to act as two things: 1. an industry metric for being visible "in the biz" and 2. it acts as much as a massive search engine as Google. I would never tell an artist to remove themselves from the largest search engine in the world and expect the world to come and find them. To this I propose the idea of only loading teasers to Spotify, samples of songs just long enough to get paid and make people want to head to their sites. First thoughts anyway. Appreciate your thoughts always : )
Interesting points, thank you! #1 is a fair point for sure, but I’m not understanding #2. If you already know the band, you can easily find their music anywhere, right? The only way I’ve discovered music on Spotify is through their radio feature or a few playlists I checked out. Those are now pay to play schemes anyways, so only artists willing to pay Spotify will show up that way. Similar to how labels used to function. So, I guess my question is for smaller and indie artists, what advantage does Spotify have over bandcamp?
The number one advantage Spotify has over bandcamp (imo of course) is that they ARE the number one destination people go to look up an artist besides Google. It's not because that's where people find new music - I rarely find new music there. But users are (at least at times) looking up artists there bc they want to find the most complete catalog (including the newest music) they've heard about from that artist. And what I'm saying in my post is that if artists flipped the script and made Spotify a ghost town for new music, in time fans / users would not look their first - other platforms, with presumably better practices like Bandcamp, would maybe have what everyone was looking for. And (in my fantasy world) this would reduce Spotify user metrics, affect market share and open the door for more leverage for the artist and bring peace to the Middle East. Basically, I'm postulating that "newly debuted music" might be Spotify's Achilles Heel - and if we can make them bend a knee than maybe we change the way they interact with the artists they depend on.
been using Qobuz for a little while - just downloaded a trial of Tidal today. The additional fidelity with other platforms has been really an added benefit to moving away from Spotify
1. Spotify sees about 100,000 new tracks added DAILY! You don’t need them. They need you.
2. Spotify pays the lowest amount per play for your music. The most Spotify pays is .005 per play. Apple Music pays TWICE that rate. Tidal pays almost THREE times as much.
3. You might not even get paid by Spotify because they’ll give your money to Drake, Taylor Swift, etc. To get paid by Spotify you need at least 1,000 spins a year or the money goes into a distribution pool that goes to those with the highest spins, as a sort of bonus.
4. Spotify is investing huge sums into pushing the music they own at the expense of the rest of creatives on the service. Check out this book by Liz Pelly (https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Mood-Machine/Liz-Pelly/9781668083505). This book should be required reading for anyone considering working with this service.
Much appreciated Dennis. I'm aware of + agree with the points you spell out here. Re Mood Machine book, I have been meaning to check that out - thank you for the nudge. "You don't need them - they need you". This is exactly my point - if we remove the premium that is our music as it first debuts, then what are they left with? It then becomes a digital storage unit (or coffin) where artists continue to only make a pitiful sum. Seems more balanced that way to me : )
Nice to see a longer form essay here, what a welcome change from social media! I feel like there’s an even simpler solution…any artist who opposes Spotify for whatever reason and has full control of their catalogue should simply not upload their music to Spotify. Most independent artists can just upload elsewhere and let their audience know.
If Spotify is not paying enough and not creating any value for the artist then what is the risk?
I’d love to to know what others think, but it seems totally doable….
TGM! I am not adverse to that approach whatsoever. The biggest deterrent I see is that Spotify continues to act as two things: 1. an industry metric for being visible "in the biz" and 2. it acts as much as a massive search engine as Google. I would never tell an artist to remove themselves from the largest search engine in the world and expect the world to come and find them. To this I propose the idea of only loading teasers to Spotify, samples of songs just long enough to get paid and make people want to head to their sites. First thoughts anyway. Appreciate your thoughts always : )
Interesting points, thank you! #1 is a fair point for sure, but I’m not understanding #2. If you already know the band, you can easily find their music anywhere, right? The only way I’ve discovered music on Spotify is through their radio feature or a few playlists I checked out. Those are now pay to play schemes anyways, so only artists willing to pay Spotify will show up that way. Similar to how labels used to function. So, I guess my question is for smaller and indie artists, what advantage does Spotify have over bandcamp?
The number one advantage Spotify has over bandcamp (imo of course) is that they ARE the number one destination people go to look up an artist besides Google. It's not because that's where people find new music - I rarely find new music there. But users are (at least at times) looking up artists there bc they want to find the most complete catalog (including the newest music) they've heard about from that artist. And what I'm saying in my post is that if artists flipped the script and made Spotify a ghost town for new music, in time fans / users would not look their first - other platforms, with presumably better practices like Bandcamp, would maybe have what everyone was looking for. And (in my fantasy world) this would reduce Spotify user metrics, affect market share and open the door for more leverage for the artist and bring peace to the Middle East. Basically, I'm postulating that "newly debuted music" might be Spotify's Achilles Heel - and if we can make them bend a knee than maybe we change the way they interact with the artists they depend on.
been using Qobuz for a little while - just downloaded a trial of Tidal today. The additional fidelity with other platforms has been really an added benefit to moving away from Spotify
More things to consider:
1. Spotify sees about 100,000 new tracks added DAILY! You don’t need them. They need you.
2. Spotify pays the lowest amount per play for your music. The most Spotify pays is .005 per play. Apple Music pays TWICE that rate. Tidal pays almost THREE times as much.
3. You might not even get paid by Spotify because they’ll give your money to Drake, Taylor Swift, etc. To get paid by Spotify you need at least 1,000 spins a year or the money goes into a distribution pool that goes to those with the highest spins, as a sort of bonus.
4. Spotify is investing huge sums into pushing the music they own at the expense of the rest of creatives on the service. Check out this book by Liz Pelly (https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Mood-Machine/Liz-Pelly/9781668083505). This book should be required reading for anyone considering working with this service.
Much appreciated Dennis. I'm aware of + agree with the points you spell out here. Re Mood Machine book, I have been meaning to check that out - thank you for the nudge. "You don't need them - they need you". This is exactly my point - if we remove the premium that is our music as it first debuts, then what are they left with? It then becomes a digital storage unit (or coffin) where artists continue to only make a pitiful sum. Seems more balanced that way to me : )