You're not hurting the companies, you're hurting the artists. I'm not saying don't pirate at all, especially from artists like Taylor swift. But maybe if you're listening to a small artist, especially if they're independent, consider buying their cd.
If the option is Spotify or pirating, you're really not hurting indie artists. They don't make shit from streaming.
hey now I make 10 bucks a year from streaming royalties. I can almost buy a fancy coffee with a shot of booze for that. Oh the life of an indie music artist.
There is still a difference between basically nothing and literally nothing. Spotify is better than pirating and CDs/vinyl/digital directly from them is better than Spotify.
That tracks. Every artist who spoke to me about this (I'm kind of a hobby musician) told me a) fuck labels, not worth it, b) Promotion is 95% of the game and you have to master it yourself, c) no money in Spotify except for the top .1% or so percent, the money always comes from gigs or shows so starting live early is a good idea.
Additionally, when you listen to an artist on Spotify or YT Music, it increases the chance of the app promoting that artist to other users.
The last album I bought was Ty Segal's latest. I have seen him live at least a dozen times and bought roughly $600 worth of limited releases and shirts at these shows. I "discovered" him thru Spotify's Discover Weekly playlist that automatically puts together music they think I will like.
I think all the free users are the problem. They don't want to pay for the service, they complain about ticket and merch prices at shows and hardly contribute anything to the artists themselves. They blame Spotify when it's Ticketmaster and the labels they should direct their anger towards. Not paying users like me.
According to this blogpost or whatever it is Spotify basically doesn't pay artists, so if there's a niche/local/whatever band you like, the best way to show support is by buying their tracks/records directly from them.
I think for smaller artists, Spotify is less for revenue and more for exposure, hoping that your music can reach new listeners.
"I can't pay you in cash, but I'll get you exposure!"
(kinda meme kinda serious, as I know nobody who hears an artist on a streaming service and then does anything past listen to them on said streaming service, netting the artist effectively nothing)
I think my favourite retort to "we can pay you in exposure" that I've ever seen has been "people die from exposure."
It's just so succinct.
I get your point but it really depends on the audience you're looking at. Personally, I use Spotify a lot to listen to any new artist I can find and check their stuff out without crawling a) youtube or b) buying their records in advance. If I stumble upon some stuff that I'm really into, I look if there are any vinyls available. (Bonus step c): you're two months late to the vinyl release and the discocks are already hoarding all copies, smh.)
The point you've made kinda boils down to the question if music is a hobby or a commodity for said person. The "problem" I'm seeing is that music is more of a commodity to many people that just listen to stuff for the sake of listening to it. That's just a product of changing times and the relation between people and music and the distributors inbetween reflects that. Of course this is frustrating for the load of talented artists that just niche audiences care about.
know nobody who hears an artist on a streaming service and then does anything past listen to them on said streaming service
Please allow me to introduce myself lol.
I go to live shows pretty frequently, maybe every two months or so, and my first exposure to many of the artists I've seen came from a random Spotify recommendation. I don't think this kind of thing is particularly uncommon among people who go to shows frequently. If I don't learn about them from Spotify, I heard about them from a friend or online community that was listening to them. Music really moves through social networks, so exposure can have some real value, though I agree it's rather cruel to literally not pay an artist and simply tell them they're getting exposure.
But hey, if exposure truly was worthless, advertising wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry.
I have the same experience. It's not like I'm on tick tock or watching MTV to find new artists. I deep dive thru the artists I already like and find them that way. It's expanded what I listen too compared to my dad who is still stuck in the 70s
Yeah, spotify recommendations, spotlist, and whatnot has replaced what MTV was back in the day.
You're not hurting the companies, you're hurting the artists. I'm not saying don't pirate at all, especially from artists like Taylor swift. But maybe if you're listening to a small artist, especially if they're independent, consider buying their cd.
If the option is Spotify or pirating, you're really not hurting indie artists. They don't make shit from streaming.
hey now I make 10 bucks a year from streaming royalties. I can almost buy a fancy coffee with a shot of booze for that. Oh the life of an indie music artist.
There is still a difference between basically nothing and literally nothing. Spotify is better than pirating and CDs/vinyl/digital directly from them is better than Spotify.
That tracks. Every artist who spoke to me about this (I'm kind of a hobby musician) told me a) fuck labels, not worth it, b) Promotion is 95% of the game and you have to master it yourself, c) no money in Spotify except for the top .1% or so percent, the money always comes from gigs or shows so starting live early is a good idea.
Additionally, when you listen to an artist on Spotify or YT Music, it increases the chance of the app promoting that artist to other users.
The last album I bought was Ty Segal's latest. I have seen him live at least a dozen times and bought roughly $600 worth of limited releases and shirts at these shows. I "discovered" him thru Spotify's Discover Weekly playlist that automatically puts together music they think I will like.
I think all the free users are the problem. They don't want to pay for the service, they complain about ticket and merch prices at shows and hardly contribute anything to the artists themselves. They blame Spotify when it's Ticketmaster and the labels they should direct their anger towards. Not paying users like me.
According to this blogpost or whatever it is Spotify basically doesn't pay artists, so if there's a niche/local/whatever band you like, the best way to show support is by buying their tracks/records directly from them.
I think for smaller artists, Spotify is less for revenue and more for exposure, hoping that your music can reach new listeners.
"I can't pay you in cash, but I'll get you exposure!"
"woah" as they hold up the piece of paper that says 'exposure', "this is worthless!"
(kinda meme kinda serious, as I know nobody who hears an artist on a streaming service and then does anything past listen to them on said streaming service, netting the artist effectively nothing)
I think my favourite retort to "we can pay you in exposure" that I've ever seen has been "people die from exposure." It's just so succinct.
I get your point but it really depends on the audience you're looking at. Personally, I use Spotify a lot to listen to any new artist I can find and check their stuff out without crawling a) youtube or b) buying their records in advance. If I stumble upon some stuff that I'm really into, I look if there are any vinyls available. (Bonus step c): you're two months late to the vinyl release and the discocks are already hoarding all copies, smh.)
The point you've made kinda boils down to the question if music is a hobby or a commodity for said person. The "problem" I'm seeing is that music is more of a commodity to many people that just listen to stuff for the sake of listening to it. That's just a product of changing times and the relation between people and music and the distributors inbetween reflects that. Of course this is frustrating for the load of talented artists that just niche audiences care about.
Please allow me to introduce myself lol.
I go to live shows pretty frequently, maybe every two months or so, and my first exposure to many of the artists I've seen came from a random Spotify recommendation. I don't think this kind of thing is particularly uncommon among people who go to shows frequently. If I don't learn about them from Spotify, I heard about them from a friend or online community that was listening to them. Music really moves through social networks, so exposure can have some real value, though I agree it's rather cruel to literally not pay an artist and simply tell them they're getting exposure.
But hey, if exposure truly was worthless, advertising wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry.
I have the same experience. It's not like I'm on tick tock or watching MTV to find new artists. I deep dive thru the artists I already like and find them that way. It's expanded what I listen too compared to my dad who is still stuck in the 70s
Yeah, spotify recommendations, spotlist, and whatnot has replaced what MTV was back in the day.