Comment by atmanactive | Hacker News Reader

Comment by atmanactive | Hacker News Reader

Musicians leaving streaming services because they are annoyed by the app/UI/algorithm, then, later on, wondering where did all the royalties disappear?!? If we all agreed that one individual song playback is worth half a penny, then, streaming is the only way to go. The only way to distribute royalties per real-world usage. The fact that people are using Spotify to discover music has nothing to do with using a streaming service to record and playback music (building your personal playlists). I tried them all and I left Spotify many years ago, and I understand fully how easy it is to build your own (pirated) music library, but I still hang on to Tidal as I really, really want to send my half-a-penny worth of payment to the artist I listen to. Simple as that. Apply the golden rule, and you'll realize that streaming services are the only way to go. Now, wether or not are streaming services being fair and paying their royalties to whomever deserves them down to the last penny - that's a discussion for governments/regulators/lawyers.

If you're under the impression that your average musician gets any significant money on streaming, this is not so.

I know a lot of professional musicians who make a living from their craft. Their income sources are touring, Patreon (or the like), Bandcamp, and then streaming.

Oh, people at the top rake in big bucks, but most of the money that streaming distributes comes from people who play music all day long based on recommendations, or tags.

I met one person who makes a living on Spotify. He has literally thousands of tracks labelled "smooth jazz" and makes a steady income entirely from people who type "smooth jazz" into Spotify and then leave the program running. He isn't ripping anyone off - his tracks are unmemorable but competent and fit the bill. But this isn't really doable for people who think of their music as creation and not a commodity.

If I like an artist, I buy their tracks outright, often on Bandcamp. Quite often I buy their whole catalogue. Thing is, if I buy a $10, 10-track album on Bandcamp, the musician gets between $8.50 and $10, almost immediately. But if I play that same album 10 times on Spotify, they get $0.30, eventually. I'd have to play that album 300 times to get the same payout to the artist, and it's extremely rare for me to play albums that often, and never in one year.

I'm doing the same. Still use Spotify to discover music and "test" it, and if I like the album I buy it from bandcamp.

>most of the money that streaming distributes comes from people who play music all day long based on recommendations, or tags.

I don't usually care much for background sound. But my brother, like many people, does and he has either the TV or streaming music on as background pretty much all the time.

Sadly Spotify doesn’t work this way. You may think if you spend $20 on Spotify that the firm takes say 50% and the rest is distributed in proportion to what you listen to. If you just listen to say Jason Donovan’s greatest hit on repeat that he gets the $10, or if you listen to 10 different opera singers evenly they get $1 each.

Instead your money goes almost entirely to Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift - artists you may not have listened to even once.

And here's a source for the above https://support.spotify.com/us/artists/article/royalties/

This is sad af. We've been discussing with my wife of cancelling our Spotify subscription. This is actually a good reason to do so.

Spotify takes 30%; the rest is distributed somewhat in proportion to what you listen to. Really small payouts (like $1) don't happen because they opened the floodgates for streamcount fraud (ppl just faking streams on fake artists - yes, that's a thing) while making absolutely no difference to regular small artists.

The distribution among all artists isn't equal but the result of very complicated licensing deals with the various major labels. The deals change every year, and the parties negotiate super hard. It's quite common for a deal for, say, 2023, to only be finalised in November 2023 - i.e. 11 months late. It's ridiculous but that's how it is.

Most of the complexity behind the payouts stems back to the special treatments the three majors want for their artists. After all, they need something special to offer to their roster. And since they have the most important artists, they have the negotiating power to pull this stuff off.

Source: worked at Spotify in the content team.

Stream share in aggregate. If I pay $14 a month and listen to Chesney’s “I am the one and only” 100 times in that month he should get $10 and Spotify $4.

That’s not what happens.

What’s the benefit in me listening to a fake artist that is me? I would get $10 back for the $14 I spend. Seems like a lot of effort to go to.

You could argue that as Chesney has a label that’s upto him and his rights holder. Fine. What about Dave Smith , my local crooner down the pub. If all I listen to is him why doesn’t he get the $10?

> What’s the benefit in me listening to a fake artist that is me?

My guess would be on the free tier, not the paid tier

Tidal supposedly pays artists out the most of the big names. Only beat out by Napster!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com