Spotify is not the way to go

Spread the love -

Bands are not getting what they were promised by Spotify, take Racing Junior for instance; 55100 plays gave about $3! The record companies does it again, they have found a new way to milk the artists. I guess Spotify doesn’t have enough users who pay, I also notice that more and more people drop Spotify because of the annoying ads.

Comon artists you can do better than this, boycot the music industry and form your own distribution networks – hire some geeks to set up a store.

Check out this thread here
Links : Lenker : DB, DB, VG


Spread the love -

Øyvind Lasse Høysæter

Born in 1971, fell in love with computing in 1983 because of Sinclair's masterpieces. Continued on the magic surrounding the C64, Amiga and moved to the PC world in 1990. Loves science fiction, programming, astronomy, my family and my job. (developer) :)

5 thoughts on “Spotify is not the way to go

  • 12 August 2009 at 12:21
    Permalink

    Hello. I think you are just plain wrong here.

    1. 55,100 plays is not very much. For example, assume one Racing Juniors song gets played one time in a small radio station with 55,100 listeners. How much money does that give them?

    2. Recent research suggests people are giving up piracy for Spotify. If artists did what you proposed (leaving streaming), they would get even less money.

    3. It’s very unfortunate to see a small indie label throw dirt at new innovation. Spotify is a creation of innovators, not the big labels. Still, since the big labels have the most popular artists, it’s no wonder they earn more from Spotify than a small Norwegian one.

    4. There will be more money from Spotify when they go profitable. Removing music from Spotify will only be bad for the artists in the long run.

    5. Racing Juniors fail to value new listeners. 55,100 plays might mean some people could be willing to pay for concerts or merchandise.

    6. If the indie artists mentioned in the Dagbladet.no article got what they wanted, there would be no online streaming music at all. It seems they want huge streaming payments when experience has taught us that extensive streaming costs are the big threat to on-demand music on the internet.

    7. Patience is needed. And education. Artists and labels must learn to understand the difference between streaming and sales.

    Reply
  • 12 August 2009 at 16:10
    Permalink

    Jeg skulle til å si noe her, men JB kom meg i forkjøpet.

    SO…what he said!
    .-= Vegar´s last blog ..Få musikken din på Spotify slik… =-.

    Reply
  • 12 August 2009 at 18:35
    Permalink

    Thanks guys for commenting, I agree that they have to focus on the difference between streaming and sales but I still suspect the industry to “slaughter” the artists – now in a new way. Sony says that they earn more on Spotify now than iTunes, I’d like to see how much they earn compared to the artists.

    (Links : DB)

    Reply
  • 6 September 2009 at 2:46
    Permalink

    There is a big difference between “radio” and on-demand streaming. The “promotional value” of on-demand streaming is very limited because people are actively looking for the artist rather than passively hearing new music chosen by a DJ.

    Reply
  • 6 September 2009 at 11:05
    Permalink

    Nod that is true, but I think the problem is that the artists were presented a totally different income range. And I have a feeling that they weren’t ‘taught’ properly how the system works.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.