Why Spotify Will Ultimately Fail
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 січ 2023
- An investor's guide to breaking the thing you're trying to sell. Replying to your comments here: • Replying To Your Spoti...
💗 Support this channel and join an amazing community: / bennjordan
👀 Stalk me on social media for more frequent updates: linktr.ee/BennJordan
🔴 ALPHABASIC AI 24/7 STREAM! • Lambient
⚡Those lovely custom acoustic panels in the background: psyacoustics.com - Наука та технологія
This shouldn't have to be said, and I wish it didn't, but PLEASE do NOT "told ya so" or send this video to people who have been laid off by Spotify this morning. They were promised a career with a functional business and are now devastated and possibly wondering how they'll pay rent next month.
You're just trying to nanny the internet, and that has never worked out for anyone ever. if you're trying to ward off personal future guilt by asking people not to "told ya so", then, that's a bit of a losing proposition. People clicked your video to reinforce their biases, they will then parade the corpse of Spotify around, as a personal victory, because this is just another tribe and that's what people do, because people are petty, impulsive and sheepish.
Besides, figuring out how to pay rent next month is pretty much the norm for most of Americans, so why should we have unique sympathies for former spotify employees? Spotify employees made more money than the average person will ever see, so why should the average poor-as-dirt person feel sympathy for them? Though, the opposite is also true. Spotify and its employees don't deserve unique ire, though they will get it and that's at least in part because of videos on UA-cam which stoke and emblazon peoples negative predilections.. Most people are complete shit bags, and imploring them to lean on their better morals is a losing proposition.
benn you're a smart lad. you played a show w my boy aaron (bleep bloop) in atlanta some years back. im from new york and couldnt go but it looked legendary. much love dawg
Weren’t they responsible to some extent for stealing musicians? At some point people need to feel responsible for their company’s actions.
@@edouardmusic what do you mean by stealing musicians?
@@RealHomeRecording Spotify employees have been driving vans around the bohemian parts of US cities, offering exposure to buskers who are never seen again.
I'm going to be honest and say that I've discovered more new music I like through the Spotify algorithms than I ever did when I bought all my music on iTunes.
I feel like we can't have both ways when it comes to music. Great discovery with Spotify or very niche targetting with indie publishers and hope it gets found organically? Conundrum..
I've some friends who claim UA-cam music has a much better algorithm
Without Streaming Services (spotify specifically) I never would have gotten into music atall let alone all the artist I found from it
@@Bryophytan but problem with UA-cam music is that your recommendations from non-music are taking into account iirc.
Neither UA-cam nor Spotify recommends music I like just songs I already listen to or something that's just meh
I wouldn't know half of my current favorite artists without Spotify.. i hear everything you're saying, but Spotify has literally been a godsend to me. I wish it was more profitable to the artists. My main way of supporting my favorite artists is just buying their tshirts. But I don't nearly make enough money to be buying everyone i listen to's album. Especially not their whole damn discography.
napster and tidal both pay more to artists. its probably still crap but at least you can easily do a little better
@@daltonbedore8396 Its pretty bad industry wide and as stated in the video the payment still falls even for tidal and the rest so its better for us to demand change for the whole industry. Also Spotify has one of, if not the, largest library of artists and songs so if you do leave there is a risk that your favourite artist isn't even there especially if they are more obsure.
Indeed. For the HiFi quality, I'd prefer Qobuz, but Spotify's recommendation engine is a game-changing feature.
Then you don’t make enough money to listen to their music lol
It is work which you are consuming for nothing in return
I realize you’re incentivized but it was never your only option
It is solely a reflection on you
And yeah, you’re in a big crowd, but you’re still a shitty person
I mean if it paid artists fairly you’d end up paying the same amount as if you bought their discography
When nearly 70% of Spotify’s revenue go to pay out record labels in music royalties, it’s hardly surprising to see Spotify to still struggle to turn profitable despite operating for 16+ years and has 10+billion euro in revenues. The record labels’ stranglehold over Spotify is the real reason why it will fail (if it does). Given the oligopolistic nature of the recording industry, Spotify is unlikely to be able to negotiate better royalty fees in the future, so its only hope is to make money in areas OUTSIDE of music streaming, ironically. This is why they’ve been aggressively pushing into podcasts over the last two years, since they believe they can make better money off of podcasts. I made a video explaining this in more detail, might be interesting to you.
Spotify understood that in order to launch they needed content. Hence the upfront payments to music rights holders to get content from major artists. Just as an individual user, Spotify corporate has to pay Sony et al, continuing royalties to maintain access to the music that users want to stream. This is the "logical side" to blitzscaling, if there is one. If there is an exit strategy to escaping the mob bosses of the music industry, it would be to negotiate with smaller artists, not signed to labels, and PROMOTING them. This is as easy as creating algorithms to perform the A&R function that record labels used to have, but abandoned years ago. In Silicon Valley terms this is known as "cutting off the oxygen" to competitors. Instead Spotify and others are doubling down on the strategy of promoting top streaming artists, which are tied to major labels. This at the expense of decreasing payments to up and coming artists. So yeah, Ben is right, streaming and Spotify is built to fail, and when the
music stops and Spotify folds, the $100's you spent for years of subscriptions go poof! You have nothing. Going back to buying CD's is starting to make more sense to me.
The record labels are the real problem. I feel like if they weren't involved it would solve atleast 90% of the problems
@@frankgeick3641But how many people are even there that are indie artist’s loyal fans? Compare that to number of people listening to your Drakes and Weeknds of the industry, it’s literally no comparison.
Artists aren’t losing anything by putting their music on Spotify, it’s a way to get better reach that’s all, why would i stop putting my music out to be available to a larger audience?
The apparent snowball effect mentioned is only wishful thinking, in reality it is more like an ant clawing at an elephant’s feet.
So why doesn't Spotify make it easier for independent musicians to upload music to their platform? Why doesn't Spotify make playlisting and advertising more transparent. In fact, they do the opposite because they are just as bad as major labels.
It'll always be license holders, labels, publishers that are going to be the heart of all problems in the creative business. You got some nice ones actually acting in the signees interests, but let's face it, it's a cesspool of greedy goblins trying to completely bend over their own customers - while expertly diverting attention to all the entities trying to make that idiotic status quo work. Which is where YT and streaming and all those platforms are, still, like anyone could battle the interests of these billions-USD industries and survive.
People complain about Netflix and streaming services removing shows from their catalog. Guess what. stupid owners of even stupider IPs are the reason for fractured markets. People making insane amounts of money off of long dead people, casts, intellectual property... it's a huge scam and there are obvious solutions to this, but it's not like the right people care enough about it quite yet.
Spotify is obviously not perfect, like no service ever will be... but they're also not really in a position to negotiate those terms, not even close.
As a finance major I approve of more investigative content on the business practices of labels and streaming services.
You really want Benn to find a horse's head in his bed, don't you? 😋
go to it, young man
And even the banks themselves. Especially with impending inflation.
Spoiler: They're all criminals.
Actually contribute to society. Finance wonks destroyed America.
I switched to bandcamp when I realized the importance of owning your content ("What if the artist or, worse, the platform decides to pull this media?") and that most of my favorite artists were pretty indie so I figured that buying a single album probably gave them more money than Spotify ever would from my listening despite the fact that I was paying just as much for Spotify very month.
true but i have lots of artists where i only want a few tracks
That's true, but the subscription system is much more convenient, it allows you to easily listen to anything with no limits and to make playlists. Also, me personally, if it weren't for Spotify i would've become a master pirate because I wouldn't be able to afford to buy all the albums that i usually listen to.
I'm not saying there isn't a better system, especially in terms of supporting the creators, but i would rather pay 30€ to a music streaming subscription service than have to spend on individual tracks and albums.
Epic bought Bandcamp to feed its next musical AI, how does this make you feel ?
@@MrChoklad i'm not sure what you really listen, but i've paid little to nothing for tracks/albums i've liked. Some niche artists allow you to choose amount you want to pay for that track. I'm not rich, to be honest - i'm poor if you can compare me to others. But when there was a track that i could buy on bandcamp and support that creator, i would come up with 1$ or 1.50$ for each song. I know it's not much, but i appreciate that i can pay at least "something", and got pirating it, i also like that bandcamp allows you to download high quality music in .flac or other format. I don't have any headphones or soundcard that can make the difference noticeable but it looks cool :P
Here's an idea. Streaming technology is such that anyone can actually set up a streaming platform especially of its audio only. What if a platform was set up that was specifically for independent artists, and it had no venture capital involved, and it took only a small fixed percentage of revenue to pay cover it's costs. It could be a non profit, with using open source technology, so it could probably avoid taxes. It could provide all of the functionality of Spotify, but being open source people could contribute code to do things like alternative shuffle algorithms, and new features could be outsourced to anyone who just wants to make it a better platform. It could be scalable, it could be able to start small and gather steam. It could get donations from people who want to see it succeed, rather than investors looking for a profit. It would be able to employ a team, whilst providing value to the artists and the fans, because it cuts out the investor class entirely. I see literally no reason why this couldn't work.
Funnily enough I wrote a paper at university in 2003 about torrents and music sharing and the fact that the reason the major labels were losing their minds was nothing to do with unrealized sales. It was the decentralized nature and the loss of control. You could see it in the language in all the press releases of the time.
Is there any way that I can read it. I'm very interested.
@@foodwav I've no idea. I'm sure I've got hard copies of all my work in a binder somewhere. It'd be interesting to look back on as this was pre streaming, I think it was even pre iTunes perhaps? I'd be interested if what I said would happen did actually happen! I think from memory I thought the majors would get a better handle on it than they did, I didn't expect third party groups (Spotify etc) to formulate but back then labels and publishing houses held all the cards, it was unthinkable that a streaming service would have any power to call any shots.
indeed it follows along with my theory centralized power does not work. when u hand over your sovereignty to one-‘take $ & power we give you to run the country’ they turn on you and use the power against you while enriching themselves. the universally known ‘power currupts, absolute …. absolutely’ is truth! let go of ‘leaders’ ! rule your community yourself w/your neighbors. and damn close to utopia is what we receive..its hard work yes! turn off your tv and meet your neighbors damnit!
After 3 years on Spotify I have made a grand total of $1.82. I don’t really promote my music because it is something I do solely because it makes me happy so I am not really concerned about the money but a little extra dough would be nice😅
Thank you for the very informative video!
What did you use the money on?
@@charlespolanco7427 I feel like this is a Cards Against Humanity question so the white card I want to play is “bitcoin”. Anyone got any better cards?
Your music is worth nothing. You are lucky to get that.
@kwimms
Thats entirely to rude for a harmless comment. Please never interact with people sharing their interests online ever again
i mean how much was it streamed
I mostly agree - I have said for a long time that Spotify will fail unless they manage to change their deals with the music industry so more money goes back to artists and the labels are either excluded or at least paid a lot less. I don't think the problem is with streaming. The real issue is the middle men. The labels have made a lot of money for a long time and are not willing to go away.. so we need to force them to go away.
BTW - I buy albums, but it's getting increasingly hard to find ways to buy albums in MP3-format.
The labels are the only problem here. They take a large share of revenue while providing almost nothing in return. Publishing music is so much easier and cheaper than before so that should be reflected iv the revenue share.
@@k0zzu21 Agree, labels are the problem and it's good that Spotify is giving indie artist a way to promote their music
The labels own a large percentage of Spotify
@Mave if you side with Spotify over the label, that is still no improvement for the musician
@@burgermind802 true, but they can provide you an audience and you could do the promo
As a minor label releasing solely through Bandcamp, we stopped taking a label share of our artists releases back in 2018 because BC label fee’s aren’t that steep and the revenue is so dire for artists that it no longer felt right skimming any more money off the top.
We release label samplers / compilations with a ‘Name Your Price’ structure and that’s the only time money goes to the label. Artists that want to contribute donate a track to us as thanks for not being soulless bastards. We scratch each others back… and it works. TBH, we are pretty much doing it for arts sake and for the love of it now. ❤
#ad
Issue raises when you are trying to make a living out of it. The little detail you mentioned in the real end explains how you can survive like this.
@@bodyheatmusicchannel
I think that where promotion on social media, and good old fashioned touring by playing clubs and bars (now that Covid is over) comes in.
@@sawtooth808 social media promotion is not a way to make an income lol
In there you can spend money to promote the music that - if heard - does not give u money as explained. Its a dog biting its own tale, with few huge web institutions eating the whole cake
Gay
A lot of people say they found so much great musicians through spotify and I agree, I did too. But also I feel like the whole culture of listening to music became more about consuming it. Like in the era of cd players I was going to the music stores and tried to find good albums there. And then I would listen to each album for a very long time and have enough time to appreciate it, learn the story behind it, learn the story of the artist behind it, etc. Novadays my spotify is a crazy mixture of everything on shuffle. I miss listening to the albums, and have albums not be 19-25 minutes long :)
its funny how i can remember all the lyrics from all the albums i owned in the 90´s..But i can´t remember most of lyrics from my spotify lists...Unless is one of the songs from albuns i owned... :D
While I agree with your generalization, all it would take is a few minor UI tweaks to vastly improve this situation so I hesitate to completely condemn streaming/spotify on this basis. They could more-closely enable the tradition of music-finding with a focus on the artist and/or the album, fostering more of a relationship or understanding between artist/listener. I hate how difficult it is to tap precisely on the right pixel of my screen to go to the artist/album associated with the currently playing song (god forbid I'm interested in the featured artist!). I tap the expanding menu more than any other button in the app, just to sort music into playlists or find the albums.
Despite its disappointing and generally ineffectual interface, I myself have been addicted to Spotify for at least 3-4 years now. First of all, I'm self-employed (~barely...) so music can be enjoyed at any time of day. Last year I looked back at my *Liked* playlist to gain perspective on my journey. I realized I discovered music at an avg rate of ~10 songs *_per day_* - basically an LP/day for a few years straight, 10K songs!
There's absolutely no way I would have been exposed to this much 'likeable' music before but I really have to go out of my way to explore what an artist has to offer. If I'm impressed enough by someone new I'll go through the motions of individually adding their albums that interest me to the playing queue and I'll individually _like_ each song I enjoy. This is easier than it was with previous platforms but still requires way too many clicks and way too much page-loading, considering the Artist's available collection is readily viewable at a whim. I also curate all my own playlists to utilize such a vast collection on a whim, I very rarely shuffle anything anymore. People generally just won't commit to going out of their way like this, compared to just letting play whatever comes their way.
Before spotify, I would discover music through YTs algorithm (Perhaps an album or 2 a month? Even that sounds generous.) and then buy it to continue to enjoy it any time, if it was on iTunes. Before that, was Limewire... My combined collection was merely 5k songs after 15 years of these methods.
I've also recently grown to to be an audiophile, so I care about the quality/fidelity of my favorite music. Fidelity is higher the closer you go to the source, so I go out of my way to pay for my favorites, as direct-to-artist as I can find digitally.
This is why shuffling is fucking stupid why do any of you people do it
@@loser-nobody @onem4nb4nd Your entire reply emphasizes the OP's point that listening has become about the ability to consume more and more music rather than having a relationship with the music you're listening to. One or two albums a month gives you some solid listening time to appreciate the music before moving on to something new. You can't convince me that you have the same relationship with your music collection consuming songs at a rate of nearly an album a day. You'll have already lost the ability to re-listen to the majority of them within a few weeks.
I also think all the hurdles you have to jump in order to have a semblance of control over your music collection is a deliberate ploy by Spotify and not a failure on their part to tweak the UI. It benefits Spotify for their customers to be disconnected from what they're listening to because it keeps those customers tied to their service. They literally don't know enough about the music they've been consuming to replicate the experience on another platform. Spotify makes it difficult on purpose. Personally, I found using Spotify to be endlessly frustrating and gave up after a few weeks.
You can still do that with Spotify though?
Nice vid! Think i love these social commentary and music industry essays more than the actual gear reviews. Sharing these insights gives us a lot more food for thought about what really matters to us (both individually and as a whole), and prompts us think how we can possibly change these insensitive, self-serving industries, or ourselves for the better.
I've always thought what could ultimately doom Spotify is if major record labels each created their own unique streaming services, and took their music off of Spotify and put it behind their own paywall much in the way that Paramount took Star Trek and Disney took Marvel from Netflix, for example. It is not hard to picture that happening at all.
The issue is that they'd have to do it at close to the same time. Otherwise the streaming service will just die, as people still get most of their stuff from Spotify.
Thats what snoop dogg is trying to do with Death Row Records
They tried with tidal but failed
yeah thats not gonna work, no one is gonna pay for multiple music services we just gonna pirate music again
I beg to differ.
"drink whiskey until you fall asleep laughing maniacally at how unfair the world is"
So...business as usual then I suppose. Got it.
I scrolled down to type this ❤
A lot of your recent videos orbit around frustration and resentment of a loser. I mean you tap into very fertile but toxic ground. Just saying
I do this regardless of business.
🫡
This ain't my first rodeo.
Benn, seriously, thank you for the work you do. As a musician, songwriter, producer etc. who puts in so much time and money to create music and gets barely anything back, I feel like you're one of the most important voices for us today.
Feels like everybody forgot about youtubes existence. That was truly the first form of streaming. And no, before spotify you didnt listen to albums you listened to music on ytb
I still do. UA-cam Music is pretty great, and I find WAY more new content there than I ever did using Spotify
I tend to find more interesting bands on UA-cam music. Spotify only gives bands that have a similar sound. Sometimes I want something new to add to my playlists. I don’t want everything to blend into one. I want to hear a song start and to get excited because it’s drastically different from the last one but still fits in. Spotify doesn’t do that. My own playlists of albums I have bought do, UA-cam music does that sometimes as well.
Well, I grew up listening to albums and radio. Then I moved on to CDs to replace all my old scratched records. Now most of my listening is either from youtube or the digital copies of CDs or digital downloads on my computer.
I went from UA-cam to Pandora to SoundCloud and then to Spotify.
Honestly I was shocked, been using Spotify for a while but I listened to some dj sets on UA-cam and within a few hours I'm finding incredibly talented artists with only a few hundred subscribers. Honestly I think that being a video platform UA-cam kinda forces you to engage a little more as a viewer rather than just putting on a Spotify mix and never really looking into the artists
Despite all the problems with streaming services, I still like them. I've got many thousands of songs in my spotify library, which would cost an eye-watering amount if I was to buy them individually (and even more if I was to buy every album I have 1-3 songs from). Maybe I'm being unreasonable expecting to get all this for just £10 a month and I should just pay up, but the reality is that if push came to shove, I would only buy a small fraction of my current library. The net result would be that I would give more support to a handful of artists, but no support at all to the rest, while also having a worse experience.
Similarly, when artists quit spotify, it doesn't make me go buy their music on another platform, it makes me stop listening to them. I want to listen to music, not faff around switching between 5 different platforms and syncing downloads across 3 different devices and having to put my card details in every time I find something new. I'm happy to pay someone to solve that problem for me and right now Spotify/Apple/Amazon are the best way to get a majority of the music I listen to in one place.
Btw, when I was a kid I could not have afforded my (mostly pirated) itunes library for full retail even if I put everything I owned into it - I can't overstate how much the pre-streaming era model sucks for young or low-income people. If Spotify (and the hardware and bandwidth to actually use it ofc) had existed back then it would've been a game changer for me.
IMO the problem isn't about streaming services as opposed to buying songs/albums etc, it's that streaming services have recreated the worst aspect of the old system: a tiny percentage of artists get paid more than they could ever spend (more listens AND they get to negotiate better rates), the majority fight over scraps, and the middlemen take a lion's share of the profits of both groups. Streaming services made it worse in some ways (e.g. the algorithm reinforces the rich-get-richer dynamics by favoring already-popular music) but none of the problems are unique to streaming. It's just capitalism.
The solution is to divert less money towards platform/record-label-owning capitalists and the top 0.1% of artists and more towards the 99.9%, but the beneficiaries of the current system will fight tooth-and-nail against that. I can't imagine a not-for-profit streaming platform surviving against the big dogs, except as a niche product that's missing a huge percentage of artists from its library. It's almost impossible to start up a new platform - nobody wants to sign up to a platform with 1% of the library of the established options, and artists won't put their music on a platform nobody uses. With enough money you can bootstrap that process by paying the big labels/artists to sign on, but that's exactly what we're trying to avoid (rich-get-richer) and besides, a not-for-profit will never get that kind of investment.
If such a platform existed with a library comparable to Spotify's I'd switch over in a heartbeat even if it cost a bit more, I just can't see it getting off the ground. Hell, as a software developer this is would be a perfect intersection of my interests and I'd even be happy to volunteer on a FOSS project to that end. But the problem isn't building it, it's licensing and getting a supermajority of artists on board.
Me too. Neil Young left Spotify. Oh well, bye bye.
I rent music with Spotify. I have dozens of playlists with many thousands of songs. I couldn't/wouldn't buy all that. All kinds of music. Same with youTube.
The music business has been screwing artists for 100 years. Sad, but not my problem..
@@headpump you are part of the problem. No alibistic bullshit that you try to justify it with will help.
I think one factor that may help an open source, or non profit streaming platform succeed, is that people want to give money to artists, if they get the idea that almost all the money they pay goes directly to their favourite artist and the rest goes to a non profit that exists entirely to benefit artists and their fans, then they might sign up to a tiny platform just for that. We need to consider that there's lots of different types of fan, not just normies who want to listen to Top 40 songs in the most convenient and mindless way possible. A tiny family owned restaurant that makes excellent food for a good price can exist in the same market as McDonald's, and they aren't even competing with each other. They have completely different customers. I for example don't subscribe to Spotify, because it doesn't give me what I want. A huge chunk of the music I like isn't on there, I don't like the interface, their shuffle algorithm sucks, it's not great for finding new music for me, and I don't believe in giving money to Big Tech, for the exact reasons outlined in this video. I can't be the only one who feels this way. Such a platform doesn't need millions of subscribers, it could start with just a few. It could also be started by artists potentially.
You’re a fool thinking you’d spend $10 a month forever for the music you listen to. & dumb enough to not give it to the artists you even listen to.
@@us3r11 That's not how the free market works. Customers will generally go for the easiest choice. The problem is not in the consumer or the provider or the artist. They're doing what is easiest for them to make/save money while getting the quality they desire. The problem lies in legislation from government. The government is the only body powerful enough to restrain a runaway free market.
A good general rule of thumb I work to myself - If I enjoy an album enough to listen to it back to back more than once, I should consider buying it either digitally or physically. Bandcamp can do both. Support artists!
ないす
How about paying over $120 bucks for a concert? Spotify is great at discovery and playlist. I feel like they are putting less effort into merch anyways but charge 60 bucks for a tshirt at a venue.
That’s what I do. Every so often I budget $30-$40 to spend on albums and I think about the ones I really like. I also look for tours, music festivals and sales on clothing, banners, bumper stickers and other merchandise.
@@Shay416 Wait until you find out about the merch fees venues charge bands, 25-30%, utter robbery.
I love Bandcamp so much
I watched this video, myself being one of the naive people who thought that paying a spotify subscription was a fair way to contribute to the industry and was shocked to say the least. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Unrelated though, I have to point out the fact that I had no idea who you were until you mentioned The Flashbulb and I realized I have been listening to your music for over three years and... I discovered it through a recommendation in spotify. How ironic and complicated this makes it all. I think I will visit your bandcamp page right now!
*Artists need to see this as a collective bargaining issue, & organize accordingly against the streaming services...!!!*
Musicians also have to look out for their own livelihood *individually*
Even if 100% of all musicians at ALL levels joined a 'union' (which is impossible), its only a pinky promise to follow suit. Many, many of them would immediately break that promise if they got a deal that only benefited them.
@@shahn78that doesn’t stop SAG from existing, so your point is?
@@Dave102693
a SAG membership is likely mandatory for a working actor in LA, while a working musician in LA doesn't need to join any union -- thats the difference.
Hope u understand now.
Like herding cats I'm afraid.
@@pseudonymlifts2 Thats a good analogy for musicians haha!
When I was a teenager I always bought (or sometimes ripped hehe) entire albums and listen to them on repeat. Someday I started using Spotify and kinda got lost into it. In recent weeks though I started to fall back into old habits and enjoy listening to entire albums again. I think that Spotify is great for discovering new music but I feel like it doesn't encourage to listen to one artist or album. Instead it encourages to listen to playlists, which can be super cool but it is a different way of listening.
If you like a song then maybe you like the album and then maybe you like the artist and then the best way to encourage that artist you like to keep producing music you like is to buy their music and I'm 100% ready to do that
see the entire way i listen to music is playlists. since i've been old enough to deliberately listen to what i want to, i've used playlists. i'm hardly ever going to just play an album and i don't think it's reasonable to expect people to start doing that
@@heroinfathr The old debate. It for sure is on Spotifys end to appropiately pay artists but it would also be very punk rock of you if you'd buy music you really like because that's the best way to support the artist
music listening is way easier for people who can just enjoy entire albums. it was personally very easy to make the switch from spotify to buying/downloading for me cuz I don't like using playlists
@@JawblotzSame here, I do like playlists, but only if I'm making them. It seems people are using Spotify like the radio, music becomes background noise and there is no emotional connection to the art itself, it's just sounds to drown out the quietness. One of my favorite bands removed their music from Spotify a few years ago, didn't bother me as I already own all their albums, but many fans were upset. IMO, if the music was that good and people truly wanted to support these artists, they would pay for their music, or at the very least, buy merchandise, but they won't, nor do they go to concerts.
Whether you listen to an entire album or not is entirely up to you, not Spotify.
I really like electronic music, and I've noticed many of my favourite producers seem pleasantly surprised by Soundcloud these days. Some of them have released stuff exclusively on there and some of them have voiced their surprise at the royalties they've received. I realise that the community is still there for electronic music in a way it isn't for other kinds but I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
haha, SoundCloud and EDM is like peanut butter and jelly.
@@heroslippy6666 aphex twin files
I thought Deezer was better when it comes to royalty payouts. SoundCloud looks like they pay peanuts
I rejoined Soundcloud again recently due to media releases that they were going to pay artists a lot better than other streaming services. Though after about half a year of being on it I found that you had to be "invited" to be paid + you had to have a paid artist account with them to be eligible in the first place. The system on how to get invited was not transparent and it was just costing me money to create content for them, so I jumped back off again.
The monthly payment I was getting from them was paying for my Pro subscription for over a year, so I considered that a win. Then I released a new album and got paid $70 one month and $50 the next. That was, as the kids say, a serious W
I wish I'd seen this when you first uploaded it Benn. Wow...First off, even as jaded as I've been about Spotify and the measly crumbs they decide to "bequeath" to us musicians, I was rather stunned by your earnings on Bandcamp vs. Spotify! You made more in 1 WEEK on Bandcamp than "3 f-ing YEARS" on Spotify? Jesus H...I don't really think outrageous is even close to describing how deeply wrong and corrupt that is. I already knew a bit about the clandestine corporo deals the majors were engaging in with them. However, my head and soul hurt. And I'm only halfway through the vid...Well, I'm back. I didn't know the term Blitzscaling but have certainly seen plenty examples of it. Well, you managed to tie everything the future for music could potentially be in a fairly nice bow. You are so correct, music will still be around even after these creator abusing streaming sites die. At this point, anything that puts even a small smile on my face is gold. Hopefully more musician friendly streaming sites with fair royalties will come to fruition. Thanks Benn for your well researched and thought provoking appraisal of Spotify.
After the recent update, it wont be long until people start leaving spotify for better alternatives
yep, i've been thinking about it... I want to focus on promoting on a better streaming platform.
*where is my like button ?!*
I think a very interesting point you forgot to mention is that part of the reason the pay per stream is going is down is because of Spotify policy in developing countries. Because of investors Spotify needs to have a sustained growth of subscribers. In consequence they offer very competitive subscriptions that are 5 times cheaper than in the rest of the world. The rate you get paid depends on where your listener is from.
Yeah obviously. Because they have lower income. What do you expect? A monthly fee that is as much as they pay for rent?
@@F_imperialists Exactly! If Spotify keep the same subscription price as the US, that is 1/20 of the average salary in my country. Imagine spending 1/20 of your salary just for ONE music subscription.
That might well be true but I doubt it can explain a 30-50% decrease in per stream revenue for smaller artists which probably don't have many people listening from these countries.
@@F_imperialists If your finances are that low, don't subscribe to anything, get a cheap radio and try and build yourself up ($$)
And rightly so. Many countries have concert discounts for students. The same goes for Spotify and even AutoCAD. When graduates start earning, they will buy the products they liked while the discounts were available.
I'd be willing to pay 2-3 times more for Spotify if I knew that extra money went to artists.
Not me tho damn 3 times 😭
@@cheese4758 Well, I used to buy music directly all the time. I listen to more different music now and pay less than I ever have in my life.
Loool speak for yourself, man’s tryna fatten up millionaires pockets even more 😂😂😂😂
@@HamzaKhan-vd5vc If you read the first three words of my OG comment, then you should realize that I am indeed "speaking for" myself. Funnily, though, you attempt to speak for me immediately after deriding the idea of trying to speak for another.
Only a very small percentage of musicians I listen to are millionaires, but even if they were that wouldn't change my preference for them getting money instead of mostly just Spotify.
@@Dschano Not a bad thought. The main reasons I'd like to see Spotify do this are simplicity for me, and also encouraging more musicians to put their music somewhere I have easy access.
Spotify determines how much of my current sub goes to a specific artist based on my listening history (more or less). I like that more than trying to deliberately manage donations. Especially tricky when listening to many different artists.
But again, it is a solid suggestion.
Thanks! Such a well articulated insightful video that points to the center of the problem. I’ve had talks with some of the top selling Spotify artists about this topic and if artists don’t stand together and begin to find solutions to actually survive and profit from what listeners appreciate and can’t live without, their amazing songs. Then they are supporting their own execution. Criminals will always try to justify their despicable actions but this is about culture and waking up to and being part of a new vision where we dare to support better platforms regardless of how eg Spotify have made positive impact on artists discovering when the business model is rotten greedy and grossly taking advantage. If you’re against slavery and salaries way way below minimum wage then be a part of a new vision and stop worrying about if you don’t know where to listen to your favorite playlist outside Spotify.
Wow, thanks for this video. I am going to check out band camp. I remember how excited I was to go to the used cd store back in the day to try to find new punk bands I could get into, this'll be like that, but way easier :)
This makes me sad. Spotify has introduced me to so much music, and has reinvigorated my love of rock and roll by letting me listen to so many old albums and bands that I never had a good chance to before. Knowing it is probably going to fail and go away sucks. There is no way I can afford to buy all those songs/albums individually - and I wouldn't even know which ones were even worth considering buying without something like Spotify to introduce me to them. My life as a music fan will be a lot worse without these streaming services.
I get what you’re saying and if you don’t want to give up streaming altogether, platforms like tidal or Qobuz are priced about the same and while they are both still finding their ground in terms of UI and what they have to offer I can say that, for example, tidal’s recommended algo might be better for finding new music. for example: I’ve noticed that it doesn’t just recommend big names in any given genre and it also seems to be able to correlate different artists who are in certain ‘scenes’ regardless of whether said artists sound remotely similar, which is a pretty sophisticated way to approach things imo. I dunno, just my two cents but, if Spotify gets a wake up call from enough people moving away from their site, then maybe they’ll have to adapt in ways that are (let’s at least say) somewhat more mutually beneficial as opposed to predatory. And those other streaming services aren’t leagues better for indie artists, but you don’t have to be leagues better for that difference to make an impact.
@@dwellynconway4721 But he says in the video that tidal is just as bad for the artist
It's not going anywhere mate
@@fredrik303 Read the end of my first comment. I’m aware they’re not as different as many might want them to be. I have also not built my opinion around this one UA-cam video… yes other streaming platforms are working off of a similar model, I still disagree with a lot of Spotify’s decisions as a company (more than almost any other platform of a similar ilk) and I still think that IF someone HaS to use a streaming platform they’d be better off using another one. Just my two cents. But by all means, do your own research And make your own educated decision.
@Retroman i can sense youre a 12 year old so i wont argue with you
Spotify's value proposition is making tons of music easily available. It is easy to say that people could create decentralized equivalents to all of these social media companies, but I think that glosses over the fact that making good software is really hard.
I agree with you. A decentralized solution assumes that there are a bunch of talented coders who are very passionate about music (or also right music) and are willing to build very complex software which will likely take years for almost no personal benefit. It’s just not realistic. If software engineering was quite easy, then sure, but then the world would be vastly different.
even Spotify sucks at making good software
Agreed. Building and maintaining the infrastructure of a service like Spotify which serves millions of users is a massive technical challenge. To build a decentralized platform which does the same thing while providing the kind of experience that users expect would take the technical challenge to a whole other level. This is not going to happen, at least not in this decade. As great as it would be to see some kind of open-source, decentralized content distribution platform, it would be a massive undertaking requiring millions of man-hours donated for free. In fact, I'm not convinced it's even possible to have a decentralized media distribution platform in today's world which provides the kind of seamless experience that users expect.
Music streaming platforms are here to stay unless a more convenient way of delivering music to users is devised.
@@sioncamara7 Your statement contradicts itself because you already said that these people are theoretically talented coders and passionate about music, but said doing this work would be for no personal gain. But that is the gain. That's the personal gain - they'll be improving the field of music and media in general.
@@vash47 that is just for file sharing right?
Nobody ever mentions Deezer. A streaming service with a bigger library, better audio quality, cheaper subscriptions, available in more countries and apparently paying artists almost 40% more than Spotify. I had it for more than a decade, simply because it was the first streaming service I heard of, I believe was launched before spotify, and always seemed better in comparison. One of life's mysteries.
Really cogent, helpful, informative breakdown of the facts, your experiences, and the experience of too many others, as well as your thoughtful analysis articulating the problem. I sincerely appreciate the time and research you put into your videos, this one being no exception.
Also worth a note - many electronic artists and labels withdrew from Spotify last year due to ethically dubious revaluations about where profits were being invested..
Spotify and algorithms catch a lot of flack but I wouldn't have found out about any of the smaller acts that I now follow without them. It would be back to the 1990s for me where I basically only listen to what's on the radio or what someone brings up as being good... and even then, they have to let me borrow the CD because I'm not paying $15 for a CD of something just to see if it actually is an act I like. Honestly, I'm old enough to where I'd probably just listen to the stuff I'm already familiar with and be happy with that.
I feel like record labels are a big part of the artist payment issue. When you look at their financial statements, Spotify pays out about 70 to 80 % of their revenue to record labels and music publishers. I think the question to be asked is are record labels and music publishers paying out anything even remotely close to 70 to 80 % of what Spotify gives them to artists?
I am an economist (and a bedroom musician), and I can only applaude your analysis of the business model. I am supporting artists on bandcamp, and have never had a spotify subscription.
Really great job at keeping our attention. Very good demeanor. Great job 👏
*Nothing makes me want to cry more than finding an artist on Spotify who's music I find amazing and see that they only have like 10 monthly listeners.*
As a noise Artist myself, i hate it that my shitty Music, have more monthly Listeres than some real musicans
Yes thats the band Father Figure for me, cool ass fusion band, cant find literally anything about them
it's probably because their quality isn't all there but you really like their specific niche and style
Yeah, I’ve found bands like that before. To be fair, not many people listen to heavier metal sub genres but seeing a band that’s so good only have 15 monthly listeners or followers makes me sad.
Tread, I love his voices unique sound and they have like 550 subs and nothing since 2016😢
I have hope for soundcloud and deezer's new payment model where they take a buck or two off the top of the subscription fee and the rest is distributed to the artists that that individual account listened to, based on how much they listened to which artists. Sure it's not a guaranteed living but it feels like a fair share of what money IS coming in.
This should be the only way the money is distributed.
From my understanding this is what a UA-cam Premium subscription does too and it's awful that Spotify subscriptions don't. Last I heard Spotify collects all the money they are paying out to artists into a big pot and then distributes it out based on collective listen time. It doesn't take much to realize you can set up a bot farm to continually listen to certain artists on free accounts and siphon away more of that payout from those that don't do that.
@@Darth_Insidious Google can afford to throw away millions. Sony cannot
@@fillerbunnyninjashark271 This has nothing to do with how much money Spotify pays out, just with how they proportion it. They wouldn't be paying out any more if they switched to how UA-cam Premium does it.
I have been on Deezer for a year now because they said they would use the user centric payment system, but so far they still didn't do anything about it. When will they finally implement it? Now they pay artists even less per stream than Spotify.
first video i'm seeing of yours and i'm absolutely blown away by the quality and depth of knowledge provided here.
PLEASE do a video about UA-cam (or maybe just youtube music specifically) !
Man, I had this exact feeling the other day when they emailed me to say "we are increasing our pricing...", at that moment I thought, there is no way Spotify is gonna last! I seriously miss the p2p days of discovering new music from friends and online communities. Now we all just wait for an algorithm to tell us we might like something 🙄
Instead of encouraging people to cancel Spotify, another suggestion is that they actually purchase music, concert tickets, and merch from the artists they’ve discovered on Spotify. And then continue to use Spotify to discover new artists, and also because streaming is *SO* convenient. You can use Spotify (or Tidal or Qobuz) at home, while running, in the car… that’s a hard luxury to give up.
I’ve purchased tons of records, and… I pretty much never play them, even though I have a nice turntable. I just buy the record to support the artist. And I go to their concerts. And I buy their shirts, which I never wear because I’m not really a t-shirt guy. And I continue to listen to them on stream.
The added benefit is that while the streaming services don’t pay the artist much, they do pay *something*. So if I buy your record, and continue to listen to that album on a streaming service, that’s bonus money on top of the record purchase.
Buy CD's and burn them to your PC. You can then play them on a mobile device, that way you support the artists and also have a backup just in case.
Yes. Let's create more useless waste you never use in form of cds and shirts to support our artist.
The whole idea of supporting artists is twisted. It's just a way for companies to get away with taking lion share of profits similar how tips work for employer who just deduct your tip from what he pays the one you actually tipped. By buying overpriced albums and shirts you just support the system where artist get's small cuts, and middleman take the most.
They will do anything to convince you the best way to support artist is going through them, by buying useless garbage they generate "to support"
@@ravensblade It's not waste if I want it. I don't listen to records very often, but I like them and want to own them.
And is there a better way to financially support an artist? Even if the label takes a cut, it's better than nothing. Should I simply hand the artist cash?
My musical tastes are mostly small acts on tiny record labels. When I attend their shows, they often mention that the merch booth is a huge part of their business model. So I take them at their word, and spend money there.
or dont support big labels, which is really the core issue. They're the one forcing streaming to push preferred artists and at the same time squeeze the artist
@@fetB I dont understand why people won't acknowledge that big ass elephant in the room. Labels have been fucking over artists since forever. They have always been the biggest problem.
These investigative video essays of yours are amazing! Totally agree with your take on this topic as well with your previous videos on AI art, etc. can’t wait for more videos from you 🙏 subscribed! 💜
Hello Val
Hello! Cool to see you here!
Love the breakdown of Apple Music, Tidal and Spotify. What about Pandora? Is that any better for artists?
I mostly agree with what you’re saying here. Though there are two things I’m not sure about. As for streaming services not working as a model, I’m not sure I agree. I use Audiomack. Whilst they do like to shovel ads down your throat, they seem to pay well. Also, Peer-to-peer music streaming apps? I’m not so sure that’s a good idea beneath the surface. When seeders drop, the music is gone which will be a huge problem in many cases. What I do think is that we should be using peer-to-peer technology in combination with traditional hosting methods to decrease server loads. I believe this could boost profits to no end!
worst part of this to me, is that outside bandcamp, spotify is still my biggest source of income from my music, and its more constant than bandcamp which spikes around album releases and then dies down. might be a marketing problem on my side, but still.
For me it is youtube. Better revenue and I have more clicks here.
@@Ufkatuale i don't have much momentum on youtube personally, my work schedule and especially release schedule doesn't lend itself to the algorithm very well. heck i'm not even monetized due to low subs and views.
@@combatplayer if you are signed to a distributor with content-id, you should always get monetised. Something like Label engine does this for example.
@@sliels oh yeah content-id is an option. I dont normally select it though cause i dont mind people using my music in videos and stuff.
@@combatplayer you can turn off monetisation/takedowns for content ID so people can still freely use your track!
I think most hardcore fans of any band will support them by buying their albums and merch not mentioning going to their concerts. Spotify to me are a way to listen to music I would never listen to otherwise and their algorithm have introduced me to bands that now are some of my favorites.
Hence good amount of artists make most of their money on tour. They use streaming as a way to promote
I tuned this on expecting to spend about five minutes getting the general gist of the idea, and somehow despite the entire video being economic and business vernacular I found myself so invested i eagerly watched through the entire thing. Awesome video and great message.
I just found your channel today. I really like your insights. So I subscribed. I'm a filmmaker and a musician. I have lots of experience in getting no royalties from Spotify. It took my band 7 years to get the minimum 25.00 for a payout. On the film side. Amazon Prime used to be awesome because they used to allow unsolicited titles to be uploaded onto the platform. I did that with my first two documentaries. They paid about 6 cents per hour streamed. Not awesome, but better than UA-cam. Now Amazon changed to where they no longer allow unsolicited titles to be streamed. So my newest documentary is relegated to strictly being on UA-cam and serving me as just a nice tax deduction. Anyway, I'm digging your channel. Thank you!
One thing I can say Spotify offers to listeners is a huge archive of vintage popular music in all genres. I don't think they will fail. They make it too convenient to find your favorite music from 30 years ago.
Yeah for the end users it will always be great in theory, but the point of the video is that it's too fragile, something as simple as a few thousand artists leaving or losing subscribers could make it collapse. The vid already showed that artists are getting less and less money, so it's not out of the question that eventually they'll just start leaving.
@@SunglassesEmoji small artists will leave, great artists won't (unless because ideology reasons like Joni Mitchell)
@@arnaldofernandez exactly, those bigger artists no longer make the majority of their money off of these things. the business model has switched to tours and merch with this raising vast awareness for their product, the old business model was long dead before Spotify but he seems not to realize that yet
@@treyspiller3931 Well, even if that is true, i will not trade my indies for just listening to Pop again and again and again
@@SunglassesEmoji leave and go where? No big streaming service can pay well and no small streaming service can be as good as a big streaming service. Spotify might pay you less but there's no better alternative,
You probably do not care, Benn, but I buy my music. In the old days, it was cassettes, then CDs, then mp3s. I still buy mp3s. It is kind of a hassle to manage that mp3 library, but I never jumped on the music streaming bandwagon. I want to build a music collection, not rent one.
Me too. Not always, but I've always had a fear in the back of my head that Spotify will one day be gone and that I don't actually own that music. I usually buy vinyl but also buy a lot of mp3s, it feels good to know that it's something I actually own and won't be gone tomorrow when some f'd up business sinks
This is the way
I ended up building my own mp3 streamer because none that I could find would just look at a directory, find MP3 files, read the ID3 tags, and serve them. This sort of software was all the rage in 1998. Not so much today.
I host my own server using OwnTone and my kids know why I buy music on Bandcamp instead of subscribing to Spotify.
That is still subscribing to a paradigm where “music” is a scarce asset that you can own. Fair enough if you enjoy the collection aspects of that, but this is not what we will revert to if streaming services shut down. It will be back to piracy. The marginal cost of a copy of a song is essentially 0. Any attempt at getting away from that by making it artificially scarce via regulation, NFT-bullshit or otherwise is doomed to fail. The cost of a Spotify subscription is pretty much exactly the maximum that most people are prepared to pay for access to unlimited copies of every single song in the world. IMO artists need to find a way of getting paid for their work (which is immensely valuable) as opposed to for copies of their music (which are essentially valueless and are facilitated by services like Spotify anyways, leaving them with what little revenue there is to find here)
Who would ever even think of starting a new music app based on much higher pay to the artists? A century of treating the creators of music like an unfortunate problem isn’t going to go away easily.
You reminded me of thesixtyone streaming site that is no more. Thanks for bringing this up,as i was not aware royalties have been lowering. Will need to reconside my options.
For some artists, the lack of royalty payments could also be viewed as "marketing fees." Not saying every artist gets the same exposure on Spotify, but unless we're going to completely revert back to brick and mortar record stores where someone is making a recommendation for new music and letting me put the album on for a trial run, Spotify DOES do a good job of getting new content to listeners. I've discovered many, many artists through Spotify that I have supported monetarily on tours, merch, and the occasional album purchase. I don't look back with even a hint of nostalgia at maintaining a record collection. Spotify's model may be terribly lopsided (who's surprised by that, though?) but it does accomplish something in the mainstream audience.
How are you profiting off of that „marketing fee“ if the consumer doesnt have any reason to spend additional money in the first place? Mostly because she already has access to your back catalogue and thinks you, as the artist, already get money for every single stream from spotify, anyway.
@@hoozn Because it's not about streaming. From what I have gathered, streaming makes up less than a quarter of revenue for music artists. Shows make up half. If Spotify (or any other streaming service) gives me access to discover an artist that's new to me, I'm going to be looking to attend a show. Thus putting more money in their pocket than if I just bought an album. I realize this viewpoint isn't applicable for every artist, especially in some genres of heavily produced music. But where artists 50 years toured to promote their albums, artists these create albums to promote their tours. The money has shifted. I just don't accept that offering music on a streaming service is "bad for business" when so many artists are capitalizing from it. Doesn't mean Spotify is the answer or best platform, but if this is approached as getting your name out instead of "lost revenue" I think there's a positive side to this.
look @@MileHighGrowler I get your point and I know those stats regarding revenue distribution. but the thing is, that this only tells half of the story: the revenue share from concerts is comparatively big, not because streaming is such a great marketing tool that results in a high demand for tours and, but simply because artists earn comparatively little from streams.
this was even mentioned in the video: literally a handful of sales on bandcamp (300 if you assume a price of around 10 bucks for the album) accounted for the same revenue as years of streaming several other albums did. so of course artists depend on tours, since streaming wont pay any bills.
and this is where the crucial part comes in: one of the most prominent arguments for streaming in this video's comment section is "I would never be able to afford buying all those tracks"... so why should those people spend even more money on concerts? if anything, there now is even more competition for smaller acts, since it is not just you, whos getting exposure, but so is the band that played the local pub the night before.
this means the audience has to think about where to spend their money, and usually it is the event that offers the biggest bang for the buck, i.e. taylordrakeadelemarooncoldplay with fireworks and 2+ hours of showmanship in front of a gazillion people...
@@hoozn I guess. I dunno. I haven't been to a venue that holds more than a few hundred people in over a decade. I follow the small acts and support them live (because I love the energy of live music). If streaming services ceased to exist, people would just go back to pirating where there's no money to share (I don't condone it, just saying that's a reality and why P2P was such a big thing before streaming and hasn't really been since). I guess the bigger question then is why are people in music. Is it for the art, the entertainment or the money? We all make sacrifices with our jobs and can't have it all. I choose to look for the positives in any scenario, that's all. And I think there are positives like discovering bands that I would not have found otherwise, who in turn I have financially supported by going to their shows and buying merch.
@@MileHighGrowler you soud like someone who is happy to spend time and money on music, regardless of streaming services, because, as you said, you love the energy of live performances and live music as a whole.
that, however, is most likely not a consequence of using streaming services. they serve a completely different purpose, i.e. background entertainment when and where you, the listener, want it. but the existence of a streaming service per se doesnt magically turn you into a concert-goer (just like discovering cooking shows on netflix doesnt make you spent your money in restaurants, if you werent already willing to do so).
therefore, your initial argument ("marketing fees" for people "discovering" your music) falls flat, because the sheer size of the userbase (and thus the number of people going to your concerts or buying records & merch) is purely fictional. moreover, it does not translate into revenue: if anything, "home-listeners" are going to spend even less, because there is no need to buy records anymore. and concerts are still a very local thing: it may be nice to discover some undergorund musicians from all over the world, but unless they are coming to your town/area (which costs them travel expenses on top), you probably wont go to one of their concerts, ever... and the bands that are playing in your area? lets be honest: you dont need a streaming service to "discover" bands that play the venue around the corner.
on a sidenote: would piracy realy be that bad?
apparently, smaller bands dont really lose much in terms of revenue anyway (as mentioned in the video), and at the same time, as a "pirate" you have to start digging again and cannot rely on algorithms and a single play button.
I’m using Bandcamp, but that’s also my fear. They’ll cater to artists for now, until they get enough customers, then they’ll roll out the blitzscaling. Also… whatever happened to Moog? Must have just got beaten out by Spotify.
Edit: I meant MOG. Turns out they shut down in 2014.
Now that "Mr. Exclusive" aka. Epic is involved... I fear for the worst.
moog? the synthesizer?
Moog? have you the right name, Moog make synths, their customers are musicians.
AMAZING VIDEO, Summarises everthing I try to tell my firends and aquaintances about music Streaming and the important of ownership.
First video of yours I’ve ever watched and newly subbed. Well done.
My personal experience is I've never listen to so much music since streaming was a thing, and it's my main way of discovering new music, sifting through new music, old music as well, and deciding what I like enough to physically buy.
I've never wasted a dime buying an album just to find out I'm indifferent about it or don't care for it.
I guess the message here is the consumers so you're not supporting your artist of choice by listening to them on Spotify, you're supporting them by buying their album we're sending them money directly to continue their efforts.
Now I'm anxious about cataloging my 10,000 songs off Spotify. Ain't no way I can afford to buy all those albums. I buy records from artists I listen to, but it's certainly not in my budget to buy all of that music. Streaming certainly has put us in an interesting place.
Spotify is bad for the artist but amazing for the listeners
If you come up with a good way to do it let us know. Off the top I think you could query them with their api?
Piracy might be your answer
@@Lucideyes89 🏴☠️ahoy
Spotify ain’t going anywhere. majority of people listen to mainstream music (that’s why it’s mainstream lolol) and they switched their business model before spotify even existed. At this point it’s mainly for marketing.
I think Spotify could be a useful tool to smaller music makers. Finding out where people are choosing to listen to your music today may be the info you need. If numbers are large enough that a list of cities or towns could create a profitable tour of those places. People like Taylor Swift who is popular everywhere does not need this from Spotify, but New Zealand's Bic Runga or Dave Dobbyn may find a selection of towns to play across the World.
Hey Benn, I thought I recognized the name from having listening to Flashbulb all those years ago (and Pale Blue Dot!!), and I thought, surely, those two nn's is just a coincidence and he surely isn't the same guy! Hahah, well I loved your informative video, and I appreciate you do not overtly criminalize those who use streaming services, and I appreciate you seeing the upside to decentralization.
Some mention that they have discovered new music via algorithms on sites like YT and spotify. I suppose, for a listener who had the knowledge from your video, this could be a beneficial and legal way to have listeners discover artists and music, and if they end up loving it well enough, they could then pay for the music (or as they say "support the artist") on bandcamp. I understand this is an unlikely scenario for most listeners.
I have no idea of the underworkings of bandcamp or any other service for that matter. But do you suppose that being acquired by this other company will cause a shift to their core values? I love bandcamp very much, I hope their model remains as a good one (assuming it was good already). Another question, why do you believe bandcamp cannot be a potential answer to the problem? Perhaps it's because they aren't set up to be a streaming-only service?
1:22 - This is probably stock footage, but for anyone who does this, please use calculated columns instead! The syntax for this in Google Sheets is =ARRAYFORMULA(formulahere), and in Microsoft Excel it's =functionname(tablename[@[columnname]:[columnname]]). Examples in Sheets: =ARRAYFORMULA(A$A:A+B$B:B), and for Excel: =SUM(Table1[@[A]:[B]]). You can also use IF-statements to only compute columns where one or more of the input values are present. This is really important for large, non-static spreadsheets where new information is frequently added.
nice try
this somebody excels
Don't do this. It makes mustard gas
🤓
Don't do this - export the data to an actual database if it's too large for simple formulas and start using standalone data libraries to analyze it.
Thankyou for being a broken record! I'm also a broken record about this and use what I would spend on a Spotify subscription every year to purchase on bandcamp and keep a personal offline digital library!
I actually found a nice compromise to the 'i don't agree with Spotify but recognise on several fronts I need to be there'
I upload my singles to streaming services and only have the rest of the release available on bandcamp
As a music lover, how I feel now compared to growing up in the 80s with radio and records is: I have way too much music accessible way too cheaply. My streaming library is forever growing with stuff I'll probably listen to once or twice or even never get around to listening to. More and more I see my Bandcamp library of purchased music as my actual "authentic" music collection. My tastes are way too obscure (drone and ambient) for streaming platforms to cater for, so 99% of my new music discovery is from dedicated blogs and Bandcamp. Thank God for Bandcamp (for now)...
I held off on Spotify until my old iPod "Classic" from 2009 finally up and died on me. I successfully converted it to flash memory and it works now but in the void between a dead and living iPod, I gave Spotify a try. Having been born in 1981, I'm part of the last generation to grow up with physical media and radio as an ONLY source of music. I still have all of my CD's and around five hundred records (both of which I still buy.) I also have thousands of MP3's that I ripped from my own collection or copied from my friends. Those albums and files are priceless to me. Spotify is a nice balance between those two worlds because I no longer have to "move" a digital collection from PC to PC or worry about losing my MP3's in a power surge. It's a "peace of mind" feeling. I have also been introduced to many artists that I wouldn't have found otherwise if it weren't for a streaming service. I guess you just have to take it as a sign of the digital times.
Big artists and big labels > any number of medium/small musicians.
As far as Spotify keeps the first ones on its side, I am sure it simply can't fail.
Keeping the big labels on its side = Never earn any money.
@@luobomu9747 yea but they also would fall into bankruptcy if they tried before they could pull it off
About the limited album thing, I recently encountered something similar. We had an exclusive vinyl track on our EP and our label asked us not to write it anywhere, because then Spotify would be mad and not give us the banner on new music Friday. So we kept low and got the banner, they don’t like exclusives on other platforms of limited editions etc. Anything relating to diminishing their library is strictly not allowed, if you want Spotify promotion:(
Do you have data on youtube music as well? Been using it since it came out cause most of the stuff i listen too (remixes and other stuff) wasnt on spotify and now i kinda wanna now how much artists make from just yt music.
Yo I just wanna say, you made me realize that I have been living my life taking what these tech companies have done as gospel. I embarrassed that I haven’t thought more critically to even think that streaming was the problem. I’ll be a regular visit here. Seems like you have super pure intentions man.
The main source of income for musicians is performing in public. Spotify acts as a promotional platform. I don't know how stable the income was from physical media (discs, cassettes) before streaming, but it seems that it was even more difficult to get on the store shelf for the broad audiences. I don't believe strimming platforms like Spotify will fall in any close time cause big labels hold the majority of pre-streaming era music. People would like to listen to their favorite old stuff and will stay where the old stuff is located. So smaller musitians will be forced to stay close.
I agree with your thinking, or I should say there's where the money should be.
Before I started streaming, I would normally find about 5-10 new artists a year that I genuinely enjoyed and would want to hear more of.
I started spotify last year and I probably follow 30-40 new artists that I've never heard before (that none of my friends have heard about either).
That exposure alone must be worth something other than cash in the pocket.
It used to be the other way. 30+ years ago, artists would go on tour to promote their new CD/album. Now they drop an album to promote their tour.
How stable was it before? We musicians used to be able to live off of it without touring, well after doing a tour to promote it all over the country/all over the world. Think about someone who is getting close to retirement age, has kids or coming grandkids, some medical issues may make touring difficult especially for long tours. We can't survive off of having to play/tour ALL the time just to make a living (not getting rich from it). Reasons like this is why I have ventured into real estate. I'd like to have a family someday and actually be able to afford to support my family. I still play for a living at the moment but almost 30 years of load and unload, sleeping on a bus when touring, horrible diet when touring be a use you're never near decent food when on the road most of the time. It wears on your body. That's not sustainable either...
The difference is that with physical media, your income does not depend on usage but on ownership. You can buy a record and listen to it once, or you can listen to it to the point it is physically worn, the artist got a fixed amount and the artist got it instantly instead of over an undefined period of time (= eternity). If you do the calculations, you will find that in any case, the physical record earns the artist more. Even if you do a scenario where streaming revenue and physical revenue are exactly the same amount, you want to get it in a big bulk (=physical) instead of spread out over many years. Large sums upfront can be invested, if I only get 100 dollars per month, then it is difficult for me as an artist to invest it into creating a new record, doing promotion, upfront cost of touring, etc. If I get 10.000 at once because of sales, I can get higher interest on it, invest it in creating more music, and I don't have to wait 10 years of active listening from my audience to get it.
Of course public performing earns you more money because it is an opportunity to sell merchandise (which has the highest profit margin), that's how dire the streaming platforms pay out. But touring is really expensive, often not really profitable, and high risk as you have all your cost up front.
With live music, I feel like those artists and labels who don't know any better would probably go with LN/TM for venues, promotion, and ticket sales. Which is another big problem.
TM: Ticketmaster
LN: LiveNation
I think i do really like the centralized model.
i dont want to have to switch apps or websites if i want to listen to a song thats not on the same platform
I would especially hate having to look up where a song is even available for streaming.
On top of that i love having a single "songs i like" playlist that i can always put on shuffle (tho spotify's "random" algorithm keeps repeating the same stuff over and over)
Switching apps and websites is what the centralized model offers. The video might have not explained it in the best way, centralization mainly refers to “centralized control” not “centralized content”.
The decentralized model means everyone agrees to to a set of rules and based on these rules they openly share content, no one centralizes arbitrary control over what is accessible. That means with a single app you can access everything that was ever shared, you just need an app that’s compliant with the defined rules.
With the centralized model, if an artist signs some exclusivity deal with a business, you won’t get their content unless you sign up with that specific business. This doesn’t happen as much with music but it’s exactly what happens with Netflix, Disney+, etc, if you want access to everything you must have multiple subscriptions and use multiple apps. Everyone is centralizing their content inside their bubbles because they hold total control over said content.
@@rockerbacon Ah, thanks for the explanation...
but its sorta hard to imagine anything decentralized that is accessible by different apps
somebody has to host the files and that host would need either a "public" way to further distribute it to a bunch of different apps that is universal for hosts so its easier to access or it would again end up with different apps only being abled to play music from certain hosts until theres either one mega app where hosts apply or one mega host where apps apply which would only mean that hosting and playing get split
also what would be the monetary system of decentralized music? buy from different hosts and you get them all to play on your fav app? kinda gets expensive quickly, main reason why i dont purchase music, im poor af but i can handle 10 bucks a month for everything spotify has to offer, even tho it fucks over creators (how does it compare to youtube music?)
@@chriser5146 The thing you are missing is that files can be transferred over the internet. If artists/platforms sold mp3s instead of subscriptions, then it doesn't matter what app you use to listen to your music. An mp3 is an mp3, and you can listen to it on almost anything anywhere. It's the same with mp4s for video.
@@ladyravendale1 But then I have to deal with mp3s. Been there, carried my trusted Sandisk Sansa with me, even put mp3s on my phone manually. It was enough of a pain that I didn't listen to much music, basically only my favorite playlist because it didn't change much. Then streaming services allowed me to easilly discover new music, and skip all the hurdle of managing files on my own.
@@Malthan This has also talked about in the comments, but when using streaming services, they control all the things. So what if your favorite artist decides that they don’t want to use that platform anymore, or what if the streaming service and record label get into a dispute? That content is gone from your playlists, they often don’t even tell you what was removed, and all you can do is cry or get a different subscription service that still has that artist. If you have the mp3 and any troubles happen, it doesn’t matter, because they can’t reach into your files and delete the music. This was also a point in the video, you can pay for the convenience, but as we are seeing now, the issues with music as a subscription are becoming apparent, like uncertainty if the content you enjoy will still be accessible tomorrow.
Revisiting this video from the recent Spotify funds allocation shenanigans. Benn is a musical prophet.
I discovered this decrease in payment a little while ago as well. Spotify claims that they give about $0.004 per stream. However, when I looked at my earnings compared to my streams, what I was actually getting paid was $0.0023. Almost half of what was supposedly average. I suppose I could potentially be getting scammed by Distrokid, but as you mentioned in this video, the lines between Distrokid and Spotify are pretty blurred.
Frankly, it's kinda disheartening. I'm one of the lucky ones who is able to make a living off of my music, so I can't complain too much, but the future isn't looking too hot.
The important thing to remember is that not all musicians have the same business model. The most financially successful artists generate most of the revenue from touring and live shows. For those artists, Spotify is a great partner because they can increase awareness, promote their shows and use Spotify data to understand where their fans are geographically to plan their tours.
For the musicians who need to generate income from recorded music, that model was dead long before Spotify. I’m sorry you thought that was coming back but it wasn’t.
incredible video. no shaming, no overly emotional takes, just well articulated and interesting. important to hear for me, as someone who has overall enjoyed the experience as a consumer on spotify
it's rather disappointing that we have to point out a lack of those things I.E. that they are commonplace enough for their absence to be remarkable
Just found your page. Subbed, liked, and writing this to motivate that algorithm.
Really interesting bit on the "hum" and curious if you are going to be doing a follow up piece in regards to Ian (of NYT's prominence) running a scam? What a dirtbag, but nice of you to offer him the opportunity to do the right thing. Your verbal judo is on point. Well done!
Very educational. Is streaming music on UA-cam from the actual artists page more profitable for the musicians?
I think that analyzing Spotify only from a monetary perspective is the biggest flaw in this analysis, musicians get paid far less on youtube and yet I can find all if not more music on youtube than I can find on spotify. A more extreme example is tiktok -- you get paid for the amount of videos that use your music, not the amount of streams a video has, so you could make less than a cent if a video with 10 million views uses your music.
The reason for all of this is a lot of artists want to be popular first, and make money second. It becomes a slippery slope, no matter how low the payout is, because it's like trying to win the lottery every time you drop a song. It doesn't matter if you have to get 2 million streams to win 10k or it's 10 million streams to get that same money. Most people wouldn't stop buying powerball tickets if the odds of a jackpot decreased from 1 in 292,201,338 to 1 in 400,000,000. People aren't always rational economic actors, and our minds aren't built to comprehend numbers of that size. Spotify is going to continue pretty much robbing musicians for years, and 99% musicians are going to keep uploading their music to it because it's not a rational economic decision to be a musical artist.
BTW I'm not saying it's not doable to make a living off of music, either, but it's REALLY hard to be truly financially secure as a musician, and it's really easy to rationalize staying on spotify, youtube, and tiktok, in case it one day comes in clutch to meet next month's rent on time.
The fact that Navidrome exists, a way to have your own Spotify-like app out of your own files running on any servers, means that decentralized music streaming is completely achievable. This being said, having to know Tech and how to set up servers as a musician is not exactly the skills that go hand-in-hand the most, but it gives me hope that one could look into ways of offering this sort of "private streaming servers". Like something a label or collective could manage or something.
Current jobs of a musician in 2023:
- Musician
- Producer
- Mix & Master
- Promoter
- Videographer
- Video editor
- Marketing agent
- Manager
I mean at this point we aren't changing much by adding Computer Tech in the same pile 😭
add influencer (for your own music)
@@FlipOfficial There is a reason labels take such a huge piece of their artists' sales. They do all of the non-musician things (..or in some cases they do even the musician part)
@@nitroanilinmusic I would completely agree with you if that were the case most of the time but sadly it’s not.
We are not longer in an era like it was in the 90's or 2000's where, if you are hot enough, they will write, distribute and do basically everything. All you have to do is just sit there and look pretty.
These days while they do take care of artists in terms of arranging marketing, promotions, gigs, photo shoots etc. most of the times they will ask of the artists to create some kind of a viral boom on the internet (now days mostly TikTok) before they even do any of that. So all of that has to come from the artist.
You do have people like, The Weeknd, Justing Bieber, Ariana Grande etc. that get taken care of by the labels, but that's your top 1%. At that point, please get paid for the work that you do to continue beating a dead horse until it stops spitting out money, you earned it as a label.
But then you also have people like Charlie Puth (regardless of opinion for his music) that has to make tiktoks to promote his music, John Legend a well established artist is being pushed by his label to go on tiktok and instagram to make videos so he doesn't get left behind. These were just at the top of my head I'm sure there are plenty more out there.
Unsigned artists are the ones that struggle the most and get punished the most by streaming services and it's up to the sole individual (or everyone in the band) to pick up the slack and be all of the things I've mentioned before.
k. I bummed myself out by typing this. gonna grab a glass of whiskey now. 🫠
@@FlipOfficial Justin Bieber and The Weeknd only got picked up because they were already going viral on UA-cam. Ariana Grande's rich parents helped get her a Broadway gig when she was 15 and was then on Victorious/Sam&Cat which led to her eventual signing when - you guessed it - label executives saw videos of her singing covers on UA-cam. Gotta be famous to get famous apparently.
@Benn Jordan So are you shorting Spotify stock?
The value of music is reaching record lows due to streaming services, but with inflation, the cost of everything going up, buying music individually again has become less feasible for the average person. It’s a very difficult situation
I got the same thing out of watching this video as I got out of watching Everything Everywhere All At Once --- yes, what you think you know falls apart when you scratch at it, but letting it fall apart is the way forward.
Very solid work! Thanks for doing this!
Cancelled my Spotify since this year. Back to buying flac and using file players. It feels good to support artists directly.
Would you mind sharing were you buy flac? Leaving spptify is something I've been wanting to do for a while now, but I haven't found a place were I could buy music in a digital format to replace it
@@MarcosLand
There are online shops and sometimes the artist or label offer download from their own websites.
Some require a computer (not mobile device) for download.
Bandcamp is great for indie and self published artists.
Bandcamp also offers unlimited streaming and downloads (WAV/FLAC/MP3) for any music you buy through their platform.
@@pauln6803 I'll make sure to check it out then. Thanks
It feels old and time consuming.
@@famemosterrrrr Look, I don't disagree and know where you're coming from. Though as an aspiring artist myself, I understand the struggle of getting by while doing what you love, especially anything art-related. So I'd rather sacrifice some comfort and support those whose music I love. It's a personal choice for everyone.
I use the same strategy as I do with books: I buy a ton of cheap ebooks on kindle and the ones that I really love I buy a physical copy of. I listen to a ton of music on spotify and the bands that I really love I buy concert tickets for. I love that this hugely increases what I have access to, but I do think it's worrying that so many of the things we love are not owned by us but dependent on subscriptions.
capitalism ruins everything: music edition
Well, without capitalism you wouldn't have most of the things that you use to consume media. Including the device you used to make your comment, and the data link used to send it. And the website/app you posted it on. Because most people create these things to make money. Sure, there are genuine artists making actual art just for the sake of it, but the technology that delivers it to you? That's courtesy of capitalism. And a lot of the music as well if we're being honest. Lots and lots of those artists started doing it for the sake of art, but eventually just wanted to get money and stuff so therefore made a lot of consumer friendly music that everyone loves and still buys today (allo Pink Floyd and Genesis fans 😅).
Capitalism isn't all bad. It has in large part created this world we live in today. The good and the bad parts of it. I, for one, enjoy modern conveniences and entertainment options. I do, however, dislike being exploited by my employer.
The trick is finding nice, comfortable mix of capitalism and socialism. Enough of each to keep everyone motivated and well taken care of with basic needs met.
While you do make a tasty point, that isn't actually the issue in this case. It's actually the "post-scarcity" part that ruined it, like he mentioned in the video.
Thank you for this video. I've been considering pulling my music from Spotify and starting a decentralized music server for my community for a while now, and it's just always great to see your perspective on the ""industry""
it might be fun or freeing, but this is mostly a great way to go from making very little to making nothing or losing money.
Would be troublesome for me to check every artists on their own server. That's my issue with decentralization in general
I love your videos on this subject Benn! I still feel taking down Spotify is a UX problem, it's the convenience factor, everything synced across multiple devices, but I'd happily pay more for it. I'll pay more, I just want to retain that convenience. If streaming an artist involved paying track by track automatically, or being on some plan that gives you X amount of streams of things you don't own, and if you run out you either buy more streams or you buy the album or whatever then I'd be into it. But I don't want to go back to managing my own music library, and I actually like the algorhitms as maybe because I have niche music taste it just does a great job finding stuff for me, often things I've never heard about. I have around 1000 playlists saved on Spotify over the years using it, I really love Spotify but not for what it does to artists, and I'd happily leave if there was a good alternative
If people leaving piracy behind is proof of anything it is that people will pay for convenience! And I think a mass exodus of artists to a more fair service, that maybe is a bit more expensive but also "fair trade" I think it could be a hit, it's just about convenience
I would do the same. I think a lot of people would. Someone above had the same idea I had, that I would gladly pay more for as well. The company providing the service takes a portion off the top then divides the remaining money among the artists you listened to.
@@kerbolax Remember what Gabe Newell said on why he started Steam. "Piracy isn't a price issue. It's a convenience issue".
Why Spotify started was to make it easier for pirates to get music legally and in a convenient manner. Similar to Steam on getting all your video games in one place.
Hi, I've been recording a couple of songs but i have nothing out there yet. Would you suggest that i go full Bandcamp? Will people be able to still identify my songs with apps like Sharzam? How would you advise that i go about this as a fresh artist who's trying to take advantage of your experience?
Spotify is so much more better and thought out than Apple Music I would be devastated if something happened to them. Hearing about the continuous layoffs were sad, I hope they can sort things out
Holy crap, I had no idea you had an active UA-cam channel, Benn! I've been in love with your music since 2008 and somehow never realized you're doing this. Well, time to binge-watch everything you have to say! Stay awesome, man
Great video and I agree with almost everything but I see one problem: Many people (including me as a student) don't have the money to support artist in a better way but still like to enjoy music. The amount of music I listen to on a barely basis couldn't barely be covered by buying 2 albums a month which is roughly what my current Apple Music subscription equates to.
Would love to hear your take on this.
Edit:
Wow, thanks for all the insightful replies!
To address a few things:
I obviously see the point of appreciating music more by buying less of it but on the other hand I'd miss out on so much good music. Also I listen to so many different genres and artists on a regular basis that it'd be close to impossible for me to choose a few specific albums.
Regarding piracy, I don't really see why it's better than using a streaming service. Yes, I do support a business that's inherently bad for the artist but at least they get a tiny bit of money from me. Also pirating is a lot of work compared to using a well developed music streaming app when it comes to actually curating a properly organized library of music.
Lastly I don't think that radio stations are comparable to any of this at all because you literally can't choose what to listen to and you can't do it offline properly.
So I think my final verdict is that we need streaming but in a different way. The subscriptions can be more expensive and it could be decentralized. That way the maintenance cost could sink and the artists will hopefully get paid a little better while people start to appreciate the music more because they pay a little more for it.
I think we'll just have to see what the future brings.
There're still ways to enjoy music via internet radio etc. And you might find that in the end you get more out of those 24 yearly albums than access to everything, at all times.
You've been spoilt, but it's at the sacrifice of the artist's fair payment. Before streaming and mp3 piracy, we all got by not just fine, but had a really great time with music. We weren't supposed to be given everything for next to nothing, because it takes years of hard work to create things. That's the balance in economy.
These stupid Communists or whoever is behind this have messed everything up.
What el-bo said but also, libraries are a thing and some of them have music.
Lots of artists put their stuff up on YT and other places for free.
And if you do end up pirating stuff, pay it forward when you're no longer a poor student.
back 30 years ago, when I was a "struggling poor student", I would buy 1 new album every 3 months, and just play the shit out of it, and the prior albums I had purchased. I would also be rather selective about what I purchased. Just because you have gotten used to free-lunch, does not mean the lunch is sustainable, or healthy, or fair.
Pirate the music until you are able to support the artists…
I'm really hoping we can make decentralized alternatives to content algorithms that allow you to decide what data you give, and what you want to see
Hopefully integrated with fully decentralized file sharing/etc, my main concern is dealing with trolls and malicious actors in the system
Has Benn done a video on how streaming services are degrading the way we listen to and explore music? i would love to watch that
Now I wanna know about the alt album version for Spotify and what problem arose from this 😁
I'm assuming that is going to be the next video. lol
My first experience with Spotify was in 2009, it worked for like maybe an hour then my account was disabled for no given reason. But UA-cam is much better for music anyways (at least for my specific needs), especially since a lot of unreleased music is available on UA-cam.
UA-cam is merely okay for music. UA-cam Music is not nearly as good as Spotify as a total experience. The Spotify app is far better in terms of UI. Spotify has better sound quality. Spotify has better music discovery and the 'algorithm' that suggests music is much more finely tuned. Spotify is worth every penny it costs for a monthly sub and then some.
@@VincentsVideoVisions But doesn't it seem to good to be true? When you have an app dedicated to music distribution digitally and it has literally every song you could possibly imagine for a cheap monthly fee? like the video said, it's a tech stock dependent on infinite growth and venture capitol. All these companies that run on 0 profits will have their day of reckoning eventually.
@@TimothyCHenderson for sure, but until that day comes im going to enjoy it. Spotify has been around several years by now... I don't see them going away any time soon.
I prefer the youtube music suggestions, i found way more bands abd new styles, on spotify it feels like im listening to the same songs allnthe time.
(I listen like 8h a day)
@@df71091 what you get out of Spotify is relative to what you put into it. Artists you follow, tracks you listen to, playlists you make, playlists you interact with, etc. Once you've heavily interacted with spotify for at least 3 or 4 months it starts to really dial in your tastes and that's when the magic happens.
Every one in these comments talking about how they discovered so much great music on Spotify.......I have to break it to you, before Spotify and Itunes you still found great music. No it wasn’t handed to you with zero effort. You found it through digging or by happenstance or your loved one put you onto it etc.. And the music MEANT so much more as a result. You may think you love music, but you have not CHERISHED music until you have went out and bought it and held that CD in your hands. Spotify is one of the largest and most harmful scams to ever effect art. Props to this man for making this video.
Nope. It’s easier now than ever to discover new artists, and like it or not, it’s largely due to Spotify, Pandora, and ope, UA-cam (the platform your currently posting on). And it’s not a bad thing. You don’t really even have to dig that much anymore if you know how to use the platform to its full potential. And that’s okay. And the process of discovery “means” just as much (whatever that is supposed to mean-more small-minded gen X bullshit rhetoric there). The world changes, and attempting to cheapen someone else’s online musical journey because you don’t align with their methods of discovery is kind of a shitty way to exist (especially when you’re doing it on YT LOL). This video is part of the problem.
@@jessturner6886 you're lost, and I love youtube. UA-cam is a blessing. Spotify is nothing like UA-cam
@@2ndprezbeats Nah. I’m right where I need to be. You’re trying to force people into your little box. It’s silly and pointless.
This is an incredible video - completely changed our outlook on our label...time to start looking into other means of promotion outside of dumping money into Spotify promo.
Maybe because being 50+, but I still prefer to buy music instead of streaming. Used to be mostly cd's, now bandcamp or via (what I presume to be) decent sellers. Also listen to Internet radio and YT music. Besides enjoying to support artists by buying music there's another aspect very important to me: I'm more aware of the music. I will read or listen to reviews, find out about the musicians etc. Therefor it's more of an experience. I'm much more aware of what I buy than what I stream.
Also, I prefer albums to songs..
One thing is that I would like streaming services to have a buy it now button that allows you to buy a digital copy. Seems like a good model would be explore while somehow creating a permanent collection. People used to listen to the radio while go and buy the albums they loved.
Thing is, people don’t go to Spotify to buy music. They go there to stream. And besides, isn’t digital purchasing on the decline due to streaming?
@@MaxAndrew A lot of people both stream music and buy it
Technically, you have that option with Apple Music since it's so tied to iTunes.
the problem is that most apps that would let you buy the album wouldn't let you download an independent mp3 file, they would let you download it and listen to it offline but you'd still have to use their app to play it, so if their service went down then you'd still lose access to the music. the problem is if they let you download an mp3 file that isn't dependant on their app and can be used with any mp3 playback app, then you could also just upload that file online and everyone could download it and use it, so 1 person buys it and 1000 people pirate it off them
I would love an alternative to spotify that is based on peer-to-peer music sharing and non-algorithmic discovery as opposed to streaming. I cannot agree on the failure of spotify due to its streaming service though. People are seemingly less willing to search for music individually and store music digitally in large quantities (as in the MP3 era). Streaming might be the only feasible solution, though I wish the "old way" of digital music discovery would not be abandoned.
EPIC message!! Thank you so much for sharing your informed and enlightened thoughts for our benefit.