Spotify er ikke noe for artistene

Jeg leser at Racing Junior fikk spilt av sine sanger 55100 ganger og for det fikk de den nette sum av 19 kroner! Dette er ikke det Spotify lovet dem. Det går nedover med Spotify, for få betaler og det er vel grunnen til manglende utbetalinger.

Jeg har lagt merke til at flere og flere dropper Spotify pga plagsom reklame, den blir bare verre og verre og kommer hyppigere.

Når jeg tenker meg om er det ikke rart at det går galt, Spotify styres så og si av plateindustrien nå og vi vet jo hvor pengene går da. Ivertfall ikke til artistene.

Jeg skulle ønske artistene kunne lage sine egne allianser seg imellom og leie en nerd til å lage en nettbutikk, da ville pengene ha gått direkte til de som fortjener pengene. Kom igjen kan ikke noen hjelpe dem?

Lenker : DB, DB, VG

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 Responses

  1. JB says:

    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.

  2. Vegar says:

    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… =-.

  3. oyvind says:

    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)

  4. g says:

    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.

  5. oyvind says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

CommentLuv badge