UPDATE : A source close to spotify has come out saying that this change will not affect songwriter and publisher royalties. Artists will still not receive 80% of their royalty payment if they do not meet this threshold under these new rules. (Provided they own their masters, publishing and are the songwriter, etc)
The sad thing about this Spotify change is that is completely backwards IMO. To smaller artists that only get a handful of plays getting those first few bucks of royalties means the world and really motivates you to keep going, while massive major label artists who get millions upon millions of streams wouldn’t even notice if they missed out on a few hundred bucks in revenue here and there.
If Spotify doesn’t want to pay small artists they should make it free to upload your first songs until you hit the threshold needed to profit. If not they are straight up benefiting from artists paying to release and not giving them a penny.
True. Imagine going to a bar and tell the owner: hey, I'm going to start paying for my beers only after I drink 100, and I'll pay half a cent for a pint, and you just shut up ;)
Yeah, that makes sense. free to upload but you don’t make money until you hit that monetization mark, and that’s when you start paying your distributor. but i doubt that will ever happen smh
I'm going to boycott Spotify from all my future releases. Already quit my subscription and honestly, can't remember their name even appearing in any payout report i've got so far. The ice is thin for indie artists with the unknowns about Bandcamp and Spotify not being an option to reach an audience. Makes me wanna go back to produce tapes for local friends like i did 30 years ago.
A few people collect tapes. Most listeners want free access online... at most they'll pay a small monthly fee for the convenience of easy streaming... they won't pay for the music itself, except for physical media collectors. Used to be, all listeners were physical media collectors, because of available technology. Now, it's probably less than 1%. Just like, if everyone has a camera with auto-everything, and instant results, so you can point and click and get something good by trial and error, essentially for free (no film or development costs) then there isn't much of a market for photographs anymore, except for synch. Just like with music. Everybody can easily make music that sounds good now, and distribute it for free. Of course the demand for recorded music dropped off a cliff. Next year, everyone will be prompting AI for artistic results, and trying to sell those to each other. That's like trying to sell ice to Eskimos.
I don't know how anybody thought the move to streaming versus people actually buying your music was a good idea. This was never meant to benefit the artist.
I totally agree but many think streaming is better than nothing because before... piracy... Piracy still needed someone to buy stuff to pirate ;) Streaming could be good if the royalties were good. But that would mean that the subscription prices go up at least 5 times if not 10. $10/mo to listen to anything, anytime, anywhere can sound reasonable for the customer but it's not a viable business option. In fact, Spotify aren't making profits. How paying less than a CD to get everything could support the music industry is beyond me ;) But then again, neither Spotify nor YT, etc. exist to make money, that's just an extra bonus, and any other real business with those financials would have disappeared.
Before streaming it was a battle between iTunes and Peer2Peer sharing. And before that, you had to be signed to get your music on the shelves at Sam Goody, FYE, and Tower Records. There were independently owned records shops but even then, those shops were not open to everyone (they were selective). I’m not sure how old you are but you don’t seem well versed when it comes to music retail history. It’s never been easier for bedroom musicians (casual musicians) to get their music on the same “shelves” as the artist they love the most. as these point of entries were non existent for casual musicians unless you went out on foot and negotiated. You also had to have a physical copy ready to play as you “pitched” your music to these shops. It was definitely a whole presentation 😅
Spotify is only here because we goosed the system before. If it wasn’t for peer2peer sharing, we’d be be having to sign with labels to get our music on shelves at FYE or make deals with smaller shops in person. I doubt iTunes would exist if it wasn’t for for the creation of the MP3 and the outcome of peer2peer sharing.
I boycotted Spotify right from the beginning, never had an account because I knew that it was a terrible deal for independent artists. It saddens me how cooperative are exploiting creativity these days
I quitt Spotify some months ago because of their Universal, Sony BMG, Warner "secret contracts" - that are not paying the average Artist! But I didnt think it could even get worse. Spotify/Universal clearly ripped off millions of Artists...and destroyed thousands of musicians careers and dreams. Im on Tidal for now.
They are only trying to destroy lazy/hobby artists. Artists that aren’t getting paid anyways. That is good for artists that are actually putting in the work.
Been a musician for 25 years .. I’m either playing music or listening to music I don’t watch tv .. I have never once used Spotify.. well I did once and thought it was stupid so never used it again why do people use Spotify? I don’t get it
The sad thing with Distro Kid is you're hard pressed to make back the $9 a year you have to pay them. Its really messed up, imagine Prince doing his music living in Skid Row in downtown LA with no hope of ever making $1.
We need to take back control of the music industry from the big companies and reorganize our priorities artists and producers need to unite and form a union against industry abuse.
“form a union” ? ya’ll can’t even loop your own music to fight within. most musicians are still crying about bandcamp rn. they keep 15%, there’s been alternatives like PayHip that only keep 5%.
did you miss the part where soundcloud is thinking about doing the same thing TF???? also bandcamp is porbably the last good streaming platform for artists.
Soundcloud probably has the fairest pay per play model but their Repost Network is the worst distribution service i ever encountered in my 30+ year career.
Actually this Spotify thing is good. Anytime an “artist focused” streaming service will be governed by major label shareholders, it is a good sign that a new streaming service will rise to start serve (independent) artists again, and the other will shrink. Subscription and cancelation is pretty quick nowadays. Don’t forget that constant in the formula , Mr. Spotify.
Korg has the worst midi implementation I have ever experienced from modern synths, aren't they gonna do anything about their outdated midi driver for existing products before releasing an over priced bs?
The Trifecta skeleton only appears when you make something incredibly shitty, warning you that you have thirty seconds to change the settings before it self-destructs
I'm still pretty pissed that no one seems to be mentioning that the distributors are blocking 90% of instrumental lofi beats, the past few months, from independent artists. Anyone else experience this censorship? You might want to do a video about this. Routenote constantly blocks lofi releases. And soon, the others will, too.
For everyone demotivated and leaning into the myth that you can't earn money off streaming platforms, the biggest issue is the labels themselves. Artists like Russ are making up to $200k a week off streaming royalties, and Connor Price is making over like $200k a month. These are people who are not household names. They are up there in the millions of monthly listeners category, but the big takeaway is they are self-made. They produce, record, mix, master, and release everything directly. So sure, the payouts of streaming platforms was never great, but if you don't have a label instantly take 50% of the pie, and you don't have to lose 10% to mixing/mastering engineers, or 20% to a producer or artist, etc., you get a way bigger portion of the pie. The narrative that there's no money for independent artists in streaming is false. It's a tougher road to manage, but those who stick to their craft and keep releasing, and maybe get that lucky breakthrough of landing on a major playlist or having some content that finally catches, will have a whole catalog of music that they get to keep 100% of royalties, and it can snowball from there. I don't think most artists need to chase this idea of making millions off music, but there are a lot of people making tens of thousands of dollars a month off simple lo-fi beats and stuff, simply because they don't have to split anything with labels or collaborators, they did it all themselves. Keep grinding, put the time into learning production, mixing, mastering, recording, etc. and you won't lose it all to someone else. The more you can do, the more you can keep. This is where most artists get burnt is chasing quick deals and contracts of having everyone else handle a lot of the track for them, and thus they get terrible splits and don't see much of a paycheck even if they get a ton of streams on the songs. Not really here to defend Spotify or the payout rates or anything, but just to point out there are people having success stories within the current landscape to try and share a different perspective that it's not fully hopeless to make it independently.
@@GizzyDillespee You don't have to sacrifice what you want to make to sell out. You can make what you want to make, and if you're consistent and good enough, you may still tap into the algorithms of certain demographics and hit lots of streaming numbers. There are chiptune composers getting millions of streams. There are lo-fi producers getting millions of streams. You can be niche, but if you're great in the niche, that's what matters. There will always be tradeoffs if you want to make a living off something, it will be easier to make money off art that is more 'commercially viable', but that's the life you have to juggle if you want to be an artist. Either make self-indulgent art at the expense of possibly excluding a bunch of people to please yourself, or make art for others. If you want the financial side of things to come your way off music or art, you have to consider what value you create for others not for yourself.
@@LETTMusicI mean it's totally possible to do both commercial singles and more "artsy" songs at the same time under the same project, it's not like anyone hasn't made it before. But it's hard to explain that when most musicians are still dreaming of signing with a record label in 2023.
Yea Im going to take legal action against spotify for theft. Spotify took away, 1723 listeners and now im down to 173.......This is criminal and I will be doing some about it. Im just glad I didn't upload all my music to spotify, I would really be screwed. I advise new artist don't upload your music on their scam website. Spotify doesn't want to pay you for your music. I'm glad I didn't spend big bucks like some artist. Spotify is a complete scam bra 4 real.
Spotify!... well that's me screwed!! - only just started using them this year. Have like 14 followers - get about 5 plays a month. Its already disheartening - made about £1.19... yay. Where can I start posting music that maybe I actually get enough to buy a set of guitar strings? 😔
80% of independent artists before Spotify didn't get paid either; they weren't good enough to get signed. This is the problem with the arts in the age of social media - it's everyone putting a tip jar next to the register at the fast food restaurant/gas station and complaining that people are "stingy."
Spotify is gettin' pretty desperate for money. That's what happens when you take VC investments. As Benn Jordan predicted, they're gonna keep getting more and more desperate until they go bankrupt from enacting too many stupid monetization schemes and cost-cutting.
Yeah Spotify and TIDAL are gonna have hard time competing with Apple Music, Amazon Music, and UA-cam Music. As all of these platforms have other outlets to make money outside of music streaming. The only thing Spotify has going for them is the free model and giving artists the ability to make money when they loop their own tracks 🔂 Let’s see how long they last, as I’m ready for decentralization to make a comeback anyway. Napster and peer2peer sharing was based on a decentralization. Web3 is decentralization but more secure and better suited for direct payments and monetization.
the irony of this situation is that the companies and Spotify itself are scratching the plate so hard so they can get the most money, while at the same time not letting us do the same, a unknown artist can have 20-50-100 streams per song, and it can add up, enough to be dollars
I've done a fair amount of research on this, and I feel like this is being blown out of proportion. Clearly no one sat and actually did the math on how much is being lost - a lot of which works out to practically zero since there is already no payout on account on the transaction fees on the payment. But I guess everyone else is too busy making videos to cry about it rather than actually read the fine print. DO THE MATH.
They haven't told us what the threshold is yet. Reports suggest it's likely to be pretty low. UMG are to blame for this. They've been making similar deals with every streaming service.
I think there are two sides to the spotify new policies: as artists and as consumers. I think spotify just focuses on the consumer side of things forgetting musicians are the ones that make spotify. People who are not musicians that pay subscription to spotify have no idea about those policies and they don't even care really, they will keep paying as long as they have the main stream music playing there. Small artists will be doomed on spotify, relying on soundcloud and/or bandcamp (well not anymore apparently), but my question is: do normal consumers/non-musicians really listen to soundcloud or bandcamp?
BTW you're not the only person annoyed about developers or youtubers or people promoting plugins making that WOW/GENIUS face, like they discover alien life or their kitchen was on fire
As a musician having only 5 to 11 plays/monthly on spotify - I am already giving up to use it. Not worthy the effort and publishing costs. On a twisted mathematics, it is better to have 3 free listeners / month on youtube and sell a few CDs per year by myself. I may try TikTok next although I hate it. lol
So 5 months on, can any independent artist with 100k+ streams actually validate Spotify's claims that these royalties robbed from smaller artists are going to bigger artists?? Have your royalties increased? Or was it indeed a massive lie from Spotify?
Oh boohoo, thousands of people will not be getting their 5 cents (or less) once a year, but artists actually making money will gain a little bit. Honestly I think the threshold for yearly streams was put way too low. Even at a $5 minimum yearly payment no one would be hurt financially, but at that point a lot of touring bands would benefit immensely.
A new Napster moment needs to happen to end the currentstreaming model, the streaming companies don't make music, they use artists as free labour to make the companies rich and their in cohoots with the major record labels. Artists are free labour (with no rights and benefits) working for the Streaming companies and the Major Labels and will receive no pay.
Distrokid are actually assholes and have a lot of picky stuff (or just doorknob employees). I had some tracks with "non-standard" capitalizations and not cleared game samples I had uploaded earlier, and it was all taken down with abysmal customer service when I needed to make some changes.
Do you mind going into depth about this? I’m curious because I use a lot of spoken word samples from movies/shows/radio/games and I wonder what will happen when I start publishing my work. How were you notified when your work was taken down?
These one-minute tracks were getting out of hand, it's good that Spotify is taking care of that and all the other non-music nonsense. When it comes to small artists, being one myself, I can definitely say that having 50 monthly listeners gets you absolutely nothing as far as payment is concerned, unless those 50 listeners manage to account for millions of streams 😁. Sure, with the new rules they would earn even less, but earning less than nothing, is still nothing, so I am not sure the impact would be very big. IMO Spotify should concentrate on having more quality music on the platform. Maybe then smaller artists would have a bigger chance.
@@PrimeMinister-l7t 2K listeners, not streams. So at least 2K streams, but probably more. 2K streams would net about $5-8 depending on where the listeners are geographically.
You’re contradicting yourself. so you don’t like the way Spotify is paying artists but you also don’t support artists that are hacking the system? Do u wanna make money or not? Spotify isn’t going to help you. Make up your mind lol! You can still upload other music as well. There were a ton of bands that had hidden tracks on their CDs. Same thing can be applied here.
Meet LANDR’S cousin SCAMDR. And side note weaver..Ableton finally has a W? You MFing ableton bros literally have a 1000 midi controllers with full Ableton integration while fl studio literally has 1 , logic pro maybe 1 or 2 maybe 😂😂
hai ragione uomo! ti fan rimpiangere i tempi del vinile. più difficile pubblicare qualcosa ma dopo almeno avevi il TUO Vinile in mano. vuoi mettere la soddisfazione... uno di quei cosi neri e rotondi che amavi fin da piccolissimo col tuo nome sopra.... wow! sorry italian only today :P
If Spotify can actually help unearth smaller artists and make less generic music able to get streams then I don’t have as much of an issue with the threshold, the issue at the moment it only really favours copy and paste music that fits neatly into genre boxes - at least that’s how it seems!
You appear to be overlooking a crucial aspect of this matter. It is perhaps incumbent upon artists to assign a greater significance to the allocation of their time. If one is dedicating one to two days for a return of merely $0.05, it may be indicative of a suboptimal approach. The path to improvement lies in prioritizing the enhancement of one's efficiency and productivity, and subsequently contemplating the financial aspect. Profoundly, results are achieved over time, and in this context, the adage "time is money" holds true. It is advisable to focus on augmenting the value contributed during these intervals. I concur with the sentiments expressed regarding Spotify, as it aligns logically with this perspective. By elevating the quality of your work, you are poised to realize a commensurate increase in remuneration. My achievement: 5 years ago - 1.000 streams 4 years ago - 10.000 streams 3 years ago - 100.000 streams 2 years ago - 500.000 streams 1 years ago - 1.000.000 streams this year - over 20.000.000 streams
What Spotify does is a clever business decision. It’s mostly unnoticeable for the 80% but a huge amount for them. HOWEVER we keep on not having the necessary conversation on the other side of the spectrum: there should also be a cut-off for the top 1% that would insure much better earnings for the 19% that have a good following but don’t earn a living
With the new eventide reverb it’s crazy too cuz BLACKHOLE REVERB ALREADY EXIST!! Like its already a thing and even if it is a better interface and has some neat features a reverb is NEVER worth $500
I would think for a corporation to not pay earnings generated from artists' property (songs), no matter how small they may be, is illegal to do. I don't know the whole legalities behind it all, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
That's true for content (videos) exclusive to their platform but I think it would be different in terms of a song(s) released through a distributor. An artist gets paid on even UA-cam for a stream whether he/she meets the standard 4000hour/1000subscriber or not, so the fact that UA-cam has to pay artist some kind of royalty despite the monetization rule they set in place makes me believe there's some kind of legality they have to abide by when it comes to artist releasing music. @@SugarMilk99
@@7vnthgood points. we shall see. i don’t have high hopes that this will help new artists tho. buts that’s just me based on my experience w/ music retail and streaming.
Spotify will fail it’s not a profitable company. All other streaming music platforms like Apple Music Amazon or UA-cam are a secondary source of profit for these companies. Spotify’s only business is music streaming.
yeah it’s quite sad that if you want to look up stuff about music gear you’re still coming to UA-cam instead of the platform specifically for music. Yeah, like you said - it’s gonna be hard for Spotify to survive parallel with Apple Music, Amazon Music, and UA-cam Music.
Pretty sure the cap to start earning equates to about $0.05 per track per month. If you’re making more than that then you’re keeping your money. Apparently could add up to close on $1bn that is redistributed to everyone else.
Meh I dunno. 5 cents per month? I don't think anyone's gonna miss 5 cents per month. Even if you had a whole back catalog of stuff getting that level of streams, like 4 full albums worth or something, that's still gonna total like $2 per month. I don't think that really matters to anyone.
UPDATE : A source close to spotify has come out saying that this change will not affect songwriter and publisher royalties. Artists will still not receive 80% of their royalty payment if they do not meet this threshold under these new rules. (Provided they own their masters, publishing and are the songwriter, etc)
The sad thing about this Spotify change is that is completely backwards IMO. To smaller artists that only get a handful of plays getting those first few bucks of royalties means the world and really motivates you to keep going, while massive major label artists who get millions upon millions of streams wouldn’t even notice if they missed out on a few hundred bucks in revenue here and there.
If you arent hitting those numbers, you're not in the business of getting money. Insanely low numbers.
bro 200 plays is like 0.6 cents 💀
majors make them money, they dont give a fck.
it's called capitalism guys
@@Arkansya It's called a monopoly.
If Spotify doesn’t want to pay small artists they should make it free to upload your first songs until you hit the threshold needed to profit. If not they are straight up benefiting from artists paying to release and not giving them a penny.
true
True. Imagine going to a bar and tell the owner: hey, I'm going to start paying for my beers only after I drink 100, and I'll pay half a cent for a pint, and you just shut up ;)
Fr!
Yeah, that makes sense. free to upload but you don’t make money until you hit that monetization mark, and that’s when you start paying your distributor. but i doubt that will ever happen smh
That would be perfect tbh, but zero chance of it happening unfortunately
I'm going to boycott Spotify from all my future releases. Already quit my subscription and honestly, can't remember their name even appearing in any payout report i've got so far. The ice is thin for indie artists with the unknowns about Bandcamp and Spotify not being an option to reach an audience. Makes me wanna go back to produce tapes for local friends like i did 30 years ago.
A few people collect tapes. Most listeners want free access online... at most they'll pay a small monthly fee for the convenience of easy streaming... they won't pay for the music itself, except for physical media collectors. Used to be, all listeners were physical media collectors, because of available technology. Now, it's probably less than 1%. Just like, if everyone has a camera with auto-everything, and instant results, so you can point and click and get something good by trial and error, essentially for free (no film or development costs) then there isn't much of a market for photographs anymore, except for synch. Just like with music. Everybody can easily make music that sounds good now, and distribute it for free. Of course the demand for recorded music dropped off a cliff. Next year, everyone will be prompting AI for artistic results, and trying to sell those to each other. That's like trying to sell ice to Eskimos.
If you hate Spotify so much, make money while you hate it lol! Upload music and test out they pay per stream for yourself.
Swear I was thinking cds and vinyl
The threshold is estimated to be 17 streams. So if your songs get more than 17 streams, you’ll make even more in royalties than you used to.
I don't know how anybody thought the move to streaming versus people actually buying your music was a good idea. This was never meant to benefit the artist.
This
I totally agree but many think streaming is better than nothing because before... piracy... Piracy still needed someone to buy stuff to pirate ;)
Streaming could be good if the royalties were good. But that would mean that the subscription prices go up at least 5 times if not 10. $10/mo to listen to anything, anytime, anywhere can sound reasonable for the customer but it's not a viable business option. In fact, Spotify aren't making profits.
How paying less than a CD to get everything could support the music industry is beyond me ;) But then again, neither Spotify nor YT, etc. exist to make money, that's just an extra bonus, and any other real business with those financials would have disappeared.
Before streaming it was a battle between iTunes and Peer2Peer sharing. And before that, you had to be signed to get your music on the shelves at Sam Goody, FYE, and Tower Records. There were independently owned records shops but even then, those shops were not open to everyone (they were selective). I’m not sure how old you are but you don’t seem well versed when it comes to music retail history.
It’s never been easier for bedroom musicians (casual musicians) to get their music on the same “shelves” as the artist they love the most. as these point of entries were non existent for casual musicians unless you went out on foot and negotiated. You also had to have a physical copy ready to play as you “pitched” your music to these shops. It was definitely a whole presentation 😅
Lame, I had so more written but it was removed when I edited it. I’m outta here ✌️
There are more customers than artists
As someone who gets less than 20 monthly listens this is awful and basically confirms that Spotify only wants big labels on their services
'cause those labels are also shareholders. $$$ stays in the family ;)
goose the system or stay a hobbyist
Spotify is only here because we goosed the system before. If it wasn’t for peer2peer sharing, we’d be be having to sign with labels to get our music on shelves at FYE or make deals with smaller shops in person. I doubt iTunes would exist if it wasn’t for for the creation of the MP3 and the outcome of peer2peer sharing.
You need to start marketing your music
Concerning Spotify, it might just be illegal in france since not paying royalties is Illegal
I boycotted Spotify right from the beginning, never had an account because I knew that it was a terrible deal for independent artists.
It saddens me how cooperative are exploiting creativity these days
S.M.D. Spotify!!!!! They will fail for being greedy P O S.
screw them, loop your trax 🔂
Apple Music c’mon now>
I quitt Spotify some months ago because of their Universal, Sony BMG, Warner "secret contracts" - that are not paying the average Artist!
But I didnt think it could even get worse. Spotify/Universal clearly ripped off millions of Artists...and destroyed thousands of musicians careers and dreams.
Im on Tidal for now.
They are only trying to destroy lazy/hobby artists. Artists that aren’t getting paid anyways. That is good for artists that are actually putting in the work.
Sit on weavers lap, he gonna fill ya in with that music production tea.
He seems like he’d have a really comfortable lap to sit on.
Been a musician for 25 years .. I’m either playing music or listening to music I don’t watch tv .. I have never once used Spotify.. well I did once and thought it was stupid so never used it again why do people use Spotify? I don’t get it
The sad thing with Distro Kid is you're hard pressed to make back the $9 a year you have to pay them. Its really messed up, imagine Prince doing his music living in Skid Row in downtown LA with no hope of ever making $1.
@@SiriusBeat I stopped using them building my own website/shop instead.
Greedy streaming services are bad for artists?
*Who woulda thunk it*
Musicians should be able to set price tags for their products. The market will do the rest. The business logic on Spotify is perverse.
Fun fact: the guy who wrote the Black Hole preset in the DSP4000 got paid 50 bucks for it. What a deal.
Damn I’m absolutely f*cked. So if I don’t get at least 20 plays a month my OWN art that I MADE won’t receive royalties?
Man, that blackhole plugin better be taking me on some serious Interstellar level time travel 10th dimensional trip for $500.
@@joechapman8208Based.
@@joechapman8208 It has it's purpose I know. Me and my little studio are by no means the target market.
I'm surprised Spotify didn't do it sooner.
Tru
This threshold is so low you wouldnt be making any money anyway. Those noise sleep playlists need to be demonitized more than anything.
Okay enough is enough, I'm building my streaming service, I have an idea, wish me luck !
We need to take back control of the music industry from the big companies and reorganize our priorities artists and producers need to unite and form a union against industry abuse.
“form a union” ? ya’ll can’t even loop your own music to fight within. most musicians are still crying about bandcamp rn. they keep 15%, there’s been alternatives like PayHip that only keep 5%.
musicians need to be more business and tech savvy. that’s why most get taken advantage of smh
Flip the switch to "off"?!* What a concept.
I think as artists, it's about time we start focusing on Soundcloud
soundcloud renaissance
did you miss the part where soundcloud is thinking about doing the same thing TF???? also bandcamp is porbably the last good streaming platform for artists.
Yeah Google will totally pay small artists fairly.
nahh they payout model sucks…
Soundcloud probably has the fairest pay per play model but their Repost Network is the worst distribution service i ever encountered in my 30+ year career.
I was heitant to put my material,on spotify beforehand, but now I don't want to at all.
Actually this Spotify thing is good. Anytime an “artist focused” streaming service will be governed by major label shareholders, it is a good sign that a new streaming service will rise to start serve (independent) artists again, and the other will shrink. Subscription and cancelation is pretty quick nowadays. Don’t forget that constant in the formula , Mr. Spotify.
Exactly cuz we not goin anywhere any time soon.
You killed me with the " pro stools" 😂
Spotify is pathetic .
I only use it for JRE now that’s it .
We also keep all new releases off Spotify for at least 6 months . F#%K Spotify
“JRE” ?
@@ghfjfghjasdfasdf The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. 🎧
Java Runtime Environment 👩🏿💻
Oh yeah, duuuuh. Thks
Am I missing something? "Screwing over" 80% of artists who generate a few cents a month is a big deal?
Korg has the worst midi implementation I have ever experienced from modern synths, aren't they gonna do anything about their outdated midi driver for existing products before releasing an over priced bs?
true I have a bluetooth keyboard that I bought in 2021 and had to download 2 separate apps to get it to connect to my Mac.
Whaaaaat 🤷♂️
The Trifecta skeleton only appears when you make something incredibly shitty, warning you that you have thirty seconds to change the settings before it self-destructs
I'm still pretty pissed that no one seems to be mentioning that the distributors are blocking 90% of instrumental lofi beats, the past few months, from independent artists. Anyone else experience this censorship? You might want to do a video about this. Routenote constantly blocks lofi releases. And soon, the others will, too.
I already am boycotting spotify…
For everyone demotivated and leaning into the myth that you can't earn money off streaming platforms, the biggest issue is the labels themselves. Artists like Russ are making up to $200k a week off streaming royalties, and Connor Price is making over like $200k a month. These are people who are not household names. They are up there in the millions of monthly listeners category, but the big takeaway is they are self-made. They produce, record, mix, master, and release everything directly. So sure, the payouts of streaming platforms was never great, but if you don't have a label instantly take 50% of the pie, and you don't have to lose 10% to mixing/mastering engineers, or 20% to a producer or artist, etc., you get a way bigger portion of the pie.
The narrative that there's no money for independent artists in streaming is false. It's a tougher road to manage, but those who stick to their craft and keep releasing, and maybe get that lucky breakthrough of landing on a major playlist or having some content that finally catches, will have a whole catalog of music that they get to keep 100% of royalties, and it can snowball from there. I don't think most artists need to chase this idea of making millions off music, but there are a lot of people making tens of thousands of dollars a month off simple lo-fi beats and stuff, simply because they don't have to split anything with labels or collaborators, they did it all themselves.
Keep grinding, put the time into learning production, mixing, mastering, recording, etc. and you won't lose it all to someone else. The more you can do, the more you can keep. This is where most artists get burnt is chasing quick deals and contracts of having everyone else handle a lot of the track for them, and thus they get terrible splits and don't see much of a paycheck even if they get a ton of streams on the songs.
Not really here to defend Spotify or the payout rates or anything, but just to point out there are people having success stories within the current landscape to try and share a different perspective that it's not fully hopeless to make it independently.
You're almost there.
Don't make the music you want to make. Instead, make the music that other people will pay you to make. Simple, ya?
@@GizzyDillespee You don't have to sacrifice what you want to make to sell out. You can make what you want to make, and if you're consistent and good enough, you may still tap into the algorithms of certain demographics and hit lots of streaming numbers. There are chiptune composers getting millions of streams. There are lo-fi producers getting millions of streams. You can be niche, but if you're great in the niche, that's what matters.
There will always be tradeoffs if you want to make a living off something, it will be easier to make money off art that is more 'commercially viable', but that's the life you have to juggle if you want to be an artist. Either make self-indulgent art at the expense of possibly excluding a bunch of people to please yourself, or make art for others. If you want the financial side of things to come your way off music or art, you have to consider what value you create for others not for yourself.
@@GizzyDillespee That's certainly an option. Subsidize your art.
@@LETTMusicI mean it's totally possible to do both commercial singles and more "artsy" songs at the same time under the same project, it's not like anyone hasn't made it before. But it's hard to explain that when most musicians are still dreaming of signing with a record label in 2023.
They confirmed its under -1000 plays
Yea Im going to take legal action against spotify for theft. Spotify took away, 1723 listeners and now im down to 173.......This is criminal and I will be doing some about it. Im just glad I didn't upload all my music to spotify, I would really be screwed. I advise new artist don't upload your music on their scam website. Spotify doesn't want to pay you for your music. I'm glad I didn't spend big bucks like some artist. Spotify is a complete scam bra 4 real.
Spotify!... well that's me screwed!! - only just started using them this year. Have like 14 followers - get about 5 plays a month. Its already disheartening - made about £1.19... yay. Where can I start posting music that maybe I actually get enough to buy a set of guitar strings? 😔
By doing this, it makes it easier for Spotify to only monetize those using Atmos. Pretty soon Spotify will only monetize labels.
The labels became shareholders to do just that.
From the companies that make equipment and just everything.I’m sick of these mfs.
You see the future 💯
Honestly it sounds like walking to the bank to withdraw the royalties would be a net loss from the wear on your shoes anyway.
80% of independent artists before Spotify didn't get paid either; they weren't good enough to get signed. This is the problem with the arts in the age of social media - it's everyone putting a tip jar next to the register at the fast food restaurant/gas station and complaining that people are "stingy."
Spotify and streaming in general destroyed music by devaluing it and screwed the artists. Less than peanuts in pay for your work.
naw, brush up on your music retail history 😅
Spotify is gettin' pretty desperate for money. That's what happens when you take VC investments. As Benn Jordan predicted, they're gonna keep getting more and more desperate until they go bankrupt from enacting too many stupid monetization schemes and cost-cutting.
Yeah Spotify and TIDAL are gonna have hard time competing with Apple Music, Amazon Music, and UA-cam Music. As all of these platforms have other outlets to make money outside of music streaming.
The only thing Spotify has going for them is the free model and giving artists the ability to make money when they loop their own tracks 🔂
Let’s see how long they last, as I’m ready for decentralization to make a comeback anyway. Napster and peer2peer sharing was based on a decentralization. Web3 is decentralization but more secure and better suited for direct payments and monetization.
the irony of this situation is that the companies and Spotify itself are scratching the plate so hard so they can get the most money, while at the same time not letting us do the same, a unknown artist can have 20-50-100 streams per song, and it can add up, enough to be dollars
My thoughts on Spotify not paying royalties to 80% of all artists? It’s fucked up to say the least.
I've done a fair amount of research on this, and I feel like this is being blown out of proportion. Clearly no one sat and actually did the math on how much is being lost - a lot of which works out to practically zero since there is already no payout on account on the transaction fees on the payment. But I guess everyone else is too busy making videos to cry about it rather than actually read the fine print. DO THE MATH.
They haven't told us what the threshold is yet. Reports suggest it's likely to be pretty low.
UMG are to blame for this. They've been making similar deals with every streaming service.
1000 streams per year per track. And there is no rollover meaning your track must always generate 1,000 streams per year to earn royalties.
I think there are two sides to the spotify new policies: as artists and as consumers. I think spotify just focuses on the consumer side of things forgetting musicians are the ones that make spotify.
People who are not musicians that pay subscription to spotify have no idea about those policies and they don't even care really, they will keep paying as long as they have the main stream music playing there. Small artists will be doomed on spotify, relying on soundcloud and/or bandcamp (well not anymore apparently), but my question is: do normal consumers/non-musicians really listen to soundcloud or bandcamp?
BTW you're not the only person annoyed about developers or youtubers or people promoting plugins making that WOW/GENIUS face, like they discover alien life or their kitchen was on fire
Synplant 2
WoW hOlY sMoKeS mAn 🤯
As a musician having only 5 to 11 plays/monthly on spotify - I am already giving up to use it. Not worthy the effort and publishing costs. On a twisted mathematics, it is better to have 3 free listeners / month on youtube and sell a few CDs per year by myself. I may try TikTok next although I hate it. lol
So 5 months on, can any independent artist with 100k+ streams actually validate Spotify's claims that these royalties robbed from smaller artists are going to bigger artists?? Have your royalties increased? Or was it indeed a massive lie from Spotify?
eyebrows shaved at 50k, lezgooooo
I just bought the AudioFuse 16Rig! Can't wait.
My favorite part of the video was when you talked about shaving your eyebrows. That’s nEwS
goodbye eyebrows
I loved the video length , ngl
spotify took fat L on this.
I wonder if Spotify will fine Spotify for uploading their own ghost productions and paying themselves?
👏‼️
Oh boohoo, thousands of people will not be getting their 5 cents (or less) once a year, but artists actually making money will gain a little bit. Honestly I think the threshold for yearly streams was put way too low. Even at a $5 minimum yearly payment no one would be hurt financially, but at that point a lot of touring bands would benefit immensely.
Spotify following that insurance company model by inventing new reasons to not pay out.
A new Napster moment needs to happen to end the currentstreaming model, the streaming companies don't make music, they use artists as free labour to make the companies rich and their in cohoots with the major record labels. Artists are free labour (with no rights and benefits) working for the Streaming companies and the Major Labels and will receive no pay.
That is very short-term thinking on Spotify’s part. I am disappointed, but not surprised.
The great downfall of Spotify..
My favourite part was the whole video !!!
Distrokid are actually assholes and have a lot of picky stuff (or just doorknob employees).
I had some tracks with "non-standard" capitalizations and not cleared game samples I had uploaded earlier, and it was all taken down with abysmal customer service when I needed to make some changes.
Do you mind going into depth about this? I’m curious because I use a lot of spoken word samples from movies/shows/radio/games and I wonder what will happen when I start publishing my work.
How were you notified when your work was taken down?
Bro I lost my shit when you were eating the bowl of cereal! Lmao "$499" Haha that was GOLD! :P
Great format, thanks !
I'm distracted by Greenland fused to a frozen Arctic Ocean
I got the original Blackhole for $20. I am sure you will be able to get the new one for about the same price on "sale" soon enough
It'll be free w/purchase on Plugin Boutique in a couple months lol
I don't think I will ever be a Spotify customer!!
Blackhole is used is scoring a lot, so I get why they think they can charge that much.
They see indipendent are on the way so they cut them the wings!
My favorite part was “…499…” over a bowl of cereal 🤣😂
These one-minute tracks were getting out of hand, it's good that Spotify is taking care of that and all the other non-music nonsense. When it comes to small artists, being one myself, I can definitely say that having 50 monthly listeners gets you absolutely nothing as far as payment is concerned, unless those 50 listeners manage to account for millions of streams 😁. Sure, with the new rules they would earn even less, but earning less than nothing, is still nothing, so I am not sure the impact would be very big. IMO Spotify should concentrate on having more quality music on the platform. Maybe then smaller artists would have a bigger chance.
Agreed
I have around 2000 monthly listeners and make practically no money
@@apoplexiamusicisn't 2000 stream around like $5?
@@PrimeMinister-l7t 2K listeners, not streams. So at least 2K streams, but probably more. 2K streams would net about $5-8 depending on where the listeners are geographically.
You’re contradicting yourself. so you don’t like the way Spotify is paying artists but you also don’t support artists that are hacking the system?
Do u wanna make money or not? Spotify isn’t going to help you. Make up your mind lol! You can still upload other music as well. There were a ton of bands that had hidden tracks on their CDs. Same thing can be applied here.
Meet LANDR’S cousin SCAMDR. And side note weaver..Ableton finally has a W? You MFing ableton bros literally have a 1000 midi controllers with full Ableton integration while fl studio literally has 1 , logic pro maybe 1 or 2 maybe 😂😂
Why can't you make a single sentence without cuts ?
hai ragione uomo! ti fan rimpiangere i tempi del vinile. più difficile pubblicare qualcosa ma dopo almeno avevi il TUO Vinile in mano. vuoi mettere la soddisfazione... uno di quei cosi neri e rotondi che amavi fin da piccolissimo col tuo nome sopra.... wow! sorry italian only today :P
Pro stools!
For the 16RIg, yes, there's the feature to control it from another MIDI device ;)
I'm saving for a QSC 30pro (or more likely a 16) because it'll do all the same stuff, but I can also control it from a tablet and use it as a PA
If Spotify can actually help unearth smaller artists and make less generic music able to get streams then I don’t have as much of an issue with the threshold, the issue at the moment it only really favours copy and paste music that fits neatly into genre boxes - at least that’s how it seems!
It’s weird the 16rig says 1499 on the arturia site, but cheaper as a sweetwater preorder
0:36 ADC & DAC by *ESS and CirrusLogic?!* I haven't heard those names in years. 90's chip manufacturers… finally a soundcard I can trust. 😸
Price of beats and services will all go up up up and away 😅
Beard is looking good my guy👍
Liven, if you put out a sampling keyboard.. No need for Poly AT, MPE, or the modular cables. Nobody actually uses those things in produced music.
Us independent artists need suge knight. I bet he could beat some sense into Spotify.
We need a class action lawsuit against Spotify or have the options on the music Distributors not to add our music to Spotify.
You appear to be overlooking a crucial aspect of this matter. It is perhaps incumbent upon artists to assign a greater significance to the allocation of their time. If one is dedicating one to two days for a return of merely $0.05, it may be indicative of a suboptimal approach. The path to improvement lies in prioritizing the enhancement of one's efficiency and productivity, and subsequently contemplating the financial aspect. Profoundly, results are achieved over time, and in this context, the adage "time is money" holds true. It is advisable to focus on augmenting the value contributed during these intervals. I concur with the sentiments expressed regarding Spotify, as it aligns logically with this perspective. By elevating the quality of your work, you are poised to realize a commensurate increase in remuneration.
My achievement:
5 years ago - 1.000 streams
4 years ago - 10.000 streams
3 years ago - 100.000 streams
2 years ago - 500.000 streams
1 years ago - 1.000.000 streams
this year - over 20.000.000 streams
Wow, I thought _I_ used too many big words. But I don't understand any of these royalty shenanigans anyway… 😶🌫️
We're making music, not hotdogs.
@@PlayedbyInstinctnaw, hot dogs have way more market value 😂
It’s the musicians fault… there the ones putting there stuff on here
trifecta looks like a 3-color etch-a-sketch 😂
What Spotify does is a clever business decision. It’s mostly unnoticeable for the 80% but a huge amount for them. HOWEVER we keep on not having the necessary conversation on the other side of the spectrum: there should also be a cut-off for the top 1% that would insure much better earnings for the 19% that have a good following but don’t earn a living
They stole this model from UA-cam tbh
how is this legal in america? I mean apple and google got caught doing anti competition behavior, this feels like alot of the same.
My favorite part is where you said the word list and it sounded like lisp =P
With the new eventide reverb it’s crazy too cuz BLACKHOLE REVERB ALREADY EXIST!! Like its already a thing and even if it is a better interface and has some neat features a reverb is NEVER worth $500
I would think for a corporation to not pay earnings generated from artists' property (songs), no matter how small they may be, is illegal to do. I don't know the whole legalities behind it all, but it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
I mean it definitely sux but UA-cam has requirements before your videos can be monetized for you to get paid.
That's true for content (videos) exclusive to their platform but I think it would be different in terms of a song(s) released through a distributor. An artist gets paid on even UA-cam for a stream whether he/she meets the standard 4000hour/1000subscriber or not, so the fact that UA-cam has to pay artist some kind of royalty despite the monetization rule they set in place makes me believe there's some kind of legality they have to abide by when it comes to artist releasing music. @@SugarMilk99
@@7vnthgood points. we shall see. i don’t have high hopes that this will help new artists tho. buts that’s just me based on my experience w/ music retail and streaming.
Spotify will fail it’s not a profitable company. All other streaming music platforms like Apple Music Amazon or UA-cam are a secondary source of profit for these companies. Spotify’s only business is music streaming.
yeah it’s quite sad that if you want to look up stuff about music gear you’re still coming to UA-cam instead of the platform specifically for music. Yeah, like you said - it’s gonna be hard for Spotify to survive parallel with Apple Music, Amazon Music, and UA-cam Music.
sauceware trifecta's UI matches the same aesthetic they used for scorch.
I will not be subsribing to Spotify anymore, I will just give my money directly to larger crooks, like Black Rock and Vanguard.
Pretty sure the cap to start earning equates to about $0.05 per track per month. If you’re making more than that then you’re keeping your money. Apparently could add up to close on $1bn that is redistributed to everyone else.
PRO STOOLS nearly peed myself
Meh I dunno. 5 cents per month? I don't think anyone's gonna miss 5 cents per month. Even if you had a whole back catalog of stuff getting that level of streams, like 4 full albums worth or something, that's still gonna total like $2 per month. I don't think that really matters to anyone.