Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwillu | Hacker News Reader

And what good does that do those artists precisely?

From the article: “For example, I am paid $0.00029 per stream of a song on Spotify, and even this amount depends on whether the song is being streamed by a paid user or someone using the service for free. This means it will take upwards of 3,500 streams of a single song on Spotify to earn $1.00 versus that same revenue for one iTunes song purchase (not to mention the fact that Spotify refuses to pay the same amount to independent artists as they pay major labels, unlike iTunes). ”

View on HN

Wow, those numbers are quite telling.

If you consider that paying for Spotify premium is basically the equivalent of buying one album per month, and the top 12 artists I might be listening to are getting nowhere near 3,500 streams per month from me, it would be better for the artists if I used free Spotify for discovery (like the radio) and then used the money to purchase those favorite albums/songs (that I could then own).

Great food for thought.

I wonder how artist pay would change if each artist got a proportional cut of every listeners fee instead of listened bring pooled and paid out that way.

I can listen to only indie artists all month long and they get laid about 15 cents from my listening. Surely more of that from my monthly fee is going to artists, but it is going to artists I don't even listen to like Taylor Swift or whoever

Makes way more sense to do it that way.

Spotify popularity doesn’t bring in cash directly, but it leads to increased ticket sales for live shows. And Spotify will recommend you to new listeners in a way that piracy won’t.

I have a personal example: Spotify recommended a band to me that I’ve now seen live three times, and they’re so obscure that I never would have heard of them without it. None of my friends knew them either.

Yes, but Spotify increasly does nothing against AI generated music that gets inserted into playlists, auto recommendation feature, ...

So now, artists are competing against AI generated music, that is often manipulated to take listening spots away from actual artists.

That’s a problem with AI music in general. I don’t see how piracy is better for that.

It enables them to build small but dedicated global fan bases that support the artist directly.

The alternative is all music is paid only and they could potentially make more money, except for the fact that they’re completely unknown and there is zero demand for their music.

I think this is a false dichotomy. There's no reason "all music is paid only" is the only option besides the all-you-can-stream for one monthly fee popularized by Spotify.

For example, the other day I discovered a local artist on Instagram. I went to her Bandcamp page and was able to listen to some tracks for free with zero friction. I ended up purchasing the deluxe vinyl, and it was one of my favorite albums that came out last year.

I've done similar with the radio. I went from hearing a track on the radio to purchasing the album on Bandcamp in like ten minutes.

Spotify and the like CAN help with discovery, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with their business model.

It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases.

And no, that is not the only alternative. There is a fine article linked at the top of this very page that points out alternatives that an actual living and breathing artist prefers.

You've been sold a repackaging of “paid in exposure” lie.

I read the article and it’s not taking into consideration my point.

> It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases.

It’s just not true. There are tons and tons of independent artists with small music careers who would almost certainly have no music career in a pre-Internet era, and the reason for that is free and wide distribution. It’s an incredible boon for small artists, especially in niche genres.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com