Recent news revealed that Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek has been investing heavily in military tech companies, which adds another ethical layer to a platform already criticized for how little it pays musicians !
Spotify only pays artists about $3–5 per 1,000 streams, using a pro-rata model that directs most money toward major stars... By contrast, Qobuz (≈$18–20 per 1,000 streams) and Tidal (≈$12–13) pay far more fairly!
However Tidal is far from ethical. Most of its revenue is controlled by private investors and founders and small artists still earn very little...
More fair-minded platforms like Bandcamp, Resonate, Ampled, or SoundCloud’s fan-powered royalties prioritize musicians over investors.
With these more ethical alternatives available, why do we keep using Spotify?
Ask any artist: they make most of their money from merch and ticket sales (depending on venue).
I assume that depends on the contract they have with their label, but usually it's a way for them to earn more.
Are most artists still aligned with labels these days? I was under the impression that there's been a massive shift to going independent.
I have no idea, but if they aren't, pirating their content is even worse based on criteria here.
Not sure why the jump to piracy here, but it's consistent with your thoughts on the rest of the thread. "Won't somebody think about the music labels that screw artists? It's piracy ruining everything!"
Read how the thread started: "Pirate and pay creators directly." As per your label comment is interesting, it almost sounds like artists are forced to sign an evil label which entire purpose is to screw artists.
Its standard across the industry. Artists get paid very little in per unit sales of media.
The bulk of money they earn comes from tours (which they cover the bill for, and cut some of the profits from), and merch (which they take the largest cut from).
That's the standard, yes. And the solution is to pirate their music instead? But seriously, why do they even bother with labels then? Don't get me wrong, I'd like for them to be better paid and for streaming services to allocate bigger cut to them, however, piracy doesn't help with this at all. Usually it's just an average Joe excuse to not pay anything at all.
Almost all of my collection was pirated in college (it didn't help that someone stole my 96 CD binder from my car). Once I was making OK money and paid downloads became a thing, I slowly rectified that. It was hard to find electronic music any other way in the '90s.
Labels provide the upfront capital for things like recording studios, distribution (traditionally, less so nowadays when there's not a physical product to distribute), publicity, marketing, live shows, etc in exchange for a percentage and usually with a contract that the artist will make X many albums with them.
Although things are slowly changing, you are unlikely to be doing huge tours at sold out venues and getting your songs played on the radio unless you have the substantial money to do so in the first place.
Wait ... people still listen to the radio?
"Here's a shitload of ads and someone in Cincinnati choosing what hundreds of stations play."
Depends on where you live, I suppose. Where I am, you can't have someone hook up their phone to a bluetooth speaking to play the world's most tame Spotify playlist but they will absolutely have the radio on at all times.