Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says...

[MinistroRaven]

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says Artists "Can't Record Music Every Three or Four Years and Think That's Going to Be Enough"

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/spotify_ceo_daniel_ek_says_artists_cant_record_music_every_three_or_four_years_and_think_thats_going_to_be_enough

--

Thoughts?

[The Walrus]

This is up there with Blizzard's "What, don't you guys have phones?" as far as out of touch comments from the corporate elite are concerned. Not a good look at all. Yikes. He really doesn't understand what it's like for a lot of artists. To some degree I agree with what he's saying, but let's take a step back... why are so many artists only releasing music at those intervals? C'mon, man...

[Crow]

the moment you start treating art as simply a product like toothpicks or napkins or whatever is the moment you lose any right to be taken seriously

[Elite]

Spotify CEO has no clue how musical artists actually make money.

[Ben_Jamin]

It's not a good look at all. How can he have a Music Streaming service, that relies on artists, yet be so out of touch and ignorant of said artist. I hope he's ignorant, or else he knows how they make money and is using them for profit.

[gzarruk]

Spotify CEO has no clue how musical artists actually make money.

He only knows how HE makes money.

It's not a good look at all. How can he have a Music Streaming service, that relies on artists, yet be so out of touch and ignorant of said artist. I hope he's ignorant, or else he knows how they make money and is using them for profit.

This too.

[emtee]

Shot himself in the foot. Stupid comments. I will say this though, there has been a sea change in the music buiz. Readjusting with the reality on the ground is no different in music or business. Adjust and survive or don't adjust and fade away. I wish the arts were exempt but they aren't.

[King Postwhore]

Spend no money for Spotify and buy direct to the artists.  Screw this guy.

[HOF]

Since the quotes in the article are not lengthy, I figured it would be worth pasting them in full here:

Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, "I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming." In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it. But unequivocally, from the data, there are more and more artists that are able to live off streaming income in itself.

There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can't record music once every three to four years and think that's going to be enough. The artists today that are making it realize that it's about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans.... I feel, really, that the ones that aren't doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released.

I think what he’s saying is being somewhat misconstrued. He’s saying if you want to make money by streaming, you have to get creative to engage your fans, etc. and not just expect that you’ll be able to get buy with only dropping an album every few years. I think he’s talking more about having a continuous stream of new content and engagement rather than focusing on the older album format.

Which all of that is something we can debate as far as the merits of art v. marketing, but it’s different than what the headline makes it sound like he is saying.

[faizoff]

To his point MP posted on twitter "I have 8 full album releases in 2020 & will make PEANUTS on them (if anything at all...) So his theory of artists needing to make MORE music to succeed is shit! "

https://twitter.com/MikePortnoy/status/1290330445301850117?s=20

[ProfessorPeart]

Dee Snider ripped him to shreds too. I am a proud non-streamer. Buy physical, if available. Digital, if no other options. Never stream.

[cramx3]

I don't think he's totally wrong, it's about adjusting to the new reality of the music business.  However, he comes off as completely ignorant and unsupportive of the artists that make HIM money so he's really looks like an ass here.  However, like I said, he is probably right about the older bands complaining the most. 

To his point MP posted on twitter "I have 8 full album releases in 2020 & will make PEANUTS on them (if anything at all...) So his theory of artists needing to make MORE music to succeed is shit! "

https://twitter.com/MikePortnoy/status/1290330445301850117?s=20

But here's the problem, peanuts to MP is probably much bigger to a young up and coming artist.  We all know MP has made a lot of money in the business, but if he only made one album a year instead of the 8, he probably makes only a single peanut thus proving the point in a way. 

For as much as I love music, the business of it really sucks is unfortunate for the artists.

[MoraWintersoul]

Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, "I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming." In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it.

This reminded me of something a narcissistic government official I know of (and hey, the one you're thinking of too - they're all made from the same blueprint) would say quite often. "Actually, if you only knew how many people tell me Spotify is the best in private!! But it's not cool to do that in public. But I assure you we're totally the best and if you made bland music that fits into our corporate Chillout and Apartment Clean playlists, completely contrary to regular artistic instincts and how people have made music for decades, you would be able to live off streaming too!"

[devieira73]

About it, there's an interesting comment by Shant Hapogian (from Semantic Saturation) on his Patreon page (at the time he created it, nine months ago, more or less).

"Every week, hundreds of new bands form around the world in this mindset, thinking the internet has got their back until the band realizes they can't actually make a living, but by then it would be too late as three things would have already happened.
1- The band has empowered the streaming service by handing them music.
2- The listener thinks they supported the artist by paying Spotify $10/month
3- Where in fact the band got paid $0.003 per play.
Now, I'm not a mathematician, but you can see what I'm getting to. Spotify doesn't care, they will keep making money and they are here to stay, thanks to big names like Sheeran, Bieber, Swift etc... (who are also being robbed by the way). Millions of artists are sucked into this giant black hole, in fear of missing out (FOMO) and leaving their work in the dark. Reality is that it's all an illusion, artists are not making any money. The only party that makes money here are record companies streaming services.
A few months ago, Tool has reportedly earned $14,000 on Spotify during the first month of their new album release. Big deal! right? Kind of. Not until you realize there's four members in the band (sometimes 5, 6?), a manager, a marketing agent, a record company, probably other parties? Do the math yourself, see how great that payout really was. Or wasn't."

[HOF]

Even today on our marketplace, there's literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who's talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don't think I've ever seen a single artist saying, "I'm happy with all the money I'm getting from streaming." In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it.

This reminded me of something a narcissistic government official I know of (and hey, the one you're thinking of too - they're all made from the same blueprint) would say quite often. "Actually, if you only knew how many people tell me Spotify is the best in private!! But it's not cool to do that in public. But I assure you we're totally the best and if you made bland music that fits into our corporate Chillout and Apartment Clean playlists, completely contrary to regular artistic instincts and how people have made music for decades, you would be able to live off streaming too!"

That’s the ickier part of the quote than the “make more than an album every 3 years” part. Of course there are some mega artists who probably make a good bit of money from streaming. The issue is there’s no real way for an unestablished artist to get much traction.

But then again, it’s historically been very hard for unestablished artists to get traction. Only a very small percentage of bands in the past ever got major label support and radio play, and the possibility for exposure through Spotify, YouTube, etc. is maybe more democratic than it ever was in the past.

[Progmetty]

Portnoy's reply was spot on!
When I first saw that article yesterday I was initially thinking "Good, that should light some fire under Metallica's lazy ass", then a moment later I realized that was an idiotic thought since Metallica is already rich beyond repair so they wouldn't give a fuck what Spotify wants, but all the other bands that I liked would be fucked if Spotify's will become an inescapable reality.
Dude basically wants musicians to streamline the creative process, although something of that nature already exists with the pop, RnB and -to an extent- rap genres, the McDonald's and the Taco Bells of music. So if I'm inclined to cut the guy some slack I'd say he probably means them, since that how most of them already work; it's pretty easy to shit out an album every other year if you don't have to write the material.
I'm pretty fuckin glad I've never used a streaming service for music.

[Anguyen92]

This is up there with Blizzard's "What, don't you guys have phones?" as far as out of touch comments from the corporate elite are concerned. Not a good look at all. Yikes. He really doesn't understand what it's like for a lot of artists. To some degree I agree with what he's saying, but let's take a step back... why are so many artists only releasing music at those intervals? C'mon, man...

Man, people were so pissed about that comment when it came to Diablo content.  I think Blizzard's stock went down after that guy made that comment in Blizzcon (which was a time where the stock should go up after the announcements).  Heck, I think Blizzard doesn't have quite a pulse on what their consumers want in their games nowadays given how much people b**** about certain stuff in WoW and how their last expansion went (which they made some valid points, but here's not a good outlet to talk about it).

Anyway, making a good album can take a good amount of time invested and a good amount of money is spent on it as well for bands that don't have certain luxuries.  It's been a common thought that musicians don't make much money, if any, at all on Spotify, but they put it out there as a necessary evil to get their music out there on a popular platform and get listeners to invest in something like a concert or actually buy the album.  Well, concerts are no-more for now and people don't buy albums, so how can a band make money to live decently other than just get merchandise and good non-album content out there?  Can the Spotify CEO answer that question without looking like a d*ke?

[MoraWintersoul]

But then again, it’s historically been very hard for unestablished artists to get traction. Only a very small percentage of bands in the past ever got major label support and radio play, and the possibility for exposure through Spotify, YouTube, etc. is maybe more democratic than it ever was in the past.

Not even the established artists are happy about it. The major pop girls and major rap artists still make albums, they're not too happy about the "release an endless stream of collabs and remixes to get on the hot new release radar" business model. What I'm talking about are the "artists" who make and make and make music with the goal of getting the attention of the curators who make those damn playlists on the front page of Spotify that get millions of streams. And Spotify has reportedly found a way to keep a piece of that cake for themselves too by directly hiring artists to produce music to populate playlists - this is the most positive spin on the situation I could find, and even this piqued my bullshit meter several times throughout the article.

Spotify managed to somehow within a few short years whitewash and push pure piracy AND make us pay for it if we want the full benefits of piracy too, while paying artists cents. If my subscription went proportionately to the artists I streamed the most that month, that would be fine. But they will never do it, and so I have stopped paying for the subscription. I'll live with the downsides, and won't listen to music offline on the go (need my phone memory for photos and other things, can't fill it up with music the way my listening habits are set up).

[wolfking]

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says Artists "Can't Record Music Every Three or Four Years and Think That's Going to Be Enough"

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/spotify_ceo_daniel_ek_says_artists_cant_record_music_every_three_or_four_years_and_think_thats_going_to_be_enough

--

Thoughts?

I don't use Spotify and now I never will.

[Nekov]

I think the guy is an imbecile for making such a comment, but on the other hand I think he knows his audience very well. We, the people in this forum, are not like most people who listen to music. Most people will listen the the newest, hottest thing and when the next great thing comes around they will migrate that way and forget whatever it was that they liked five minutes ago. If you are catering to those people, what this guy is saying makes sense.
If you look at how people consume nowadays, this is nothing new. People get bored with things very quickly and need something new to entertain them. This is just modern capitalism 101. It sucks big time, but it is what most customers want.

[TAC]

Is the .003 per songs stream or album stream. In other words my question is is the .003 multiplied by 10 for a 10 song album?

[TAC]

I'm trying to figure out what was so bad about what he said? Many replies in this thread even said something along the lines that technically he isn't all that wrong.


Maybe MP wouldn't have made peanuts if he had made 8 albums that people actually cared about. Seems when MP wanted a break, the rest of DT wanted to continue the "engagement" with their fans.

And music IS product the moment you put it up for sale.


I have purchased a ton of albums that I would never have had it not been for Spotify. And while it does seem like peanuts, they (the bands) are making "something" off of me sampling. If I like it enough, I'm buying it.
It's not like if I buy an album and I don't like it after my first couple of listens they're going to give me my money back, are they?

[TAC]

Dee Snider ripped him to shreds too. I am a proud non-streamer. Buy physical, if available. Digital, if no other options. Never stream.

Do you ever listen to something before you buy it? If someone recommends something, do you simply buy it unheard?

[Buddyhunter1]

Is the .003 per songs stream or album stream. In other words my question is is the .003 multiplied by 10 for a 10 song album?

I'm more curious if a full play for a 2 minute song gives the same money as a full play for a 30 minute song.

[HOF]

I'm trying to figure out what was so bad about what he said? Many replies in this thread even said something along the lines that technically he isn't all that wrong.


Maybe MP wouldn't have made peanuts if he had made 8 albums that people actually cared about. Seems when MP wanted a break, the rest of DT wanted to continue the "engagement" with their fans.

And music IS product the moment you put it up for sale.


I have purchased a ton of albums that I would never have had it not been for Spotify. And while it does seem like peanuts, they are making "something" off of me sampling. If I like it enough, I'm buying it.
It's not like if I buy an album and I don't like it after my first couple of listens they're going to give me my money back, are they?

Yeah, I think Spotify is probably a net good for promotional purposes, at least as opposed to the world as it was without Spotify or other streaming services. There’s a certain segment of the population who will buy music (it’s all 20 of us on the forum probably!), and if you can reach them through a streaming platform that helps.

It’s probably true that a lot of people are disincentivized from buying a release if they can just stream it. But those people were probably not going to know about your album anyway unless you were on a major label. Maybe there was a day when small label/independent bands could make money off CD sales, but I’m not sure many were able to make a living that way (probably always survived more off touring).

I suppose the bands I feel for the most would be the legacy acts who aren’t actively making music and whose labels sold out their catalog without their say. Hard to make a living off of your back catalog when your old fans already have it and any new fans are likely to just stream it.

[TAC]

If I listen to a band's album on their Bandcamp page, do they get anything from Bandcamp?

[HOF]

Is the .003 per songs stream or album stream. In other words my question is is the .003 multiplied by 10 for a 10 song album?

I'm more curious if a full play for a 2 minute song gives the same money as a full play for a 30 minute song.

I’m pretty sure it’s per song. And I also think a 2 minute and 30 minute song get the same amount per play. If I recall that’s why Marillion chopped up FEAR into a hundred tracks.

[Buddyhunter1]

If I listen to a band's album on their Bandcamp page, do they get anything from Bandcamp?

Don't think so. At least bandcamp lets you actually buy albums, though.

[TAC]

Yes, that's true, but I can listen to a band's album on Bandcamp and they get nothing, or I can listen on Spotify and they get .003 per song.

If I like enough, and feel it'll earn multiple repeat listens, I'll buy.

[Volante99]

Unfortunately, we just can’t seem to reconcile paying for music in the digital age. Spotify is BARELY profitable as it is (although I also know there seems to be a ton of waste with that company ie- a huge Manhattan office, lavish office parities, etc) so they can’t exactly

Really, the service is too cheap- millions and millions of records at your fingertips for, what? $10-12 a month? It’s really hard to make that a sustainable business model for both the business AND artists. On the other hand, user base seems to drop significantly at 19.99/a month.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.

[TAC]

Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.

Yes, I agree 100% and is my position as well.

[Volante99]

Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.

Yes and no for me. It’s definitely a discovery tool as far as discovering new artists and going to their concerts as a support (or sometimes DVDs and merch) but I will rarely buy a CD, I hate to admit.
There’s just no value add for me having hundreds of CDs lying around. I do love vinyl but at $25-30 a pop when 95% of new music is recorded digitally anyway....I just can’t personally afford to go too deep down that road. If it’s a new release of a band I like I WILL often do an iTunes digital download.

I DO wish there was someway for Spotify to give my $10/month DIRECTLY To the artists I stream. That’s seems to be a better value proposition in the way of artists getting their fair share.

[Cool Chris]

Really, the service is too cheap- millions and millions of records at your fingertips for, what? $10-12 a month? It’s really hard to make that a sustainable business model for both the business AND artists. On the other hand, user base seems to drop significantly at 19.99/a month.

Or $0 if you have the free subscription.

[Ben_Jamin]

Personally I view streaming services as a discovery tool. I find music that I like, and then I buy the albums. I like physical media and actually owning the thing, plus as a fan of music I have a vested interest in the ability of artists to continue being able to make music.

I'm the exact same way.

Bandcamp is great for lesser known musicians and bands as they get more. From my understanding, a local musician I chatted with on Facebook (oddly enough about this very same discussion) had said bands get the majority of the funds, bandcamp takes a small fee, and they are waiving it this Friday. It's easy to browse new music as well, you can even filter to Genre and some styles within the genre, of course you have to dig, but there is some fantastic music out there.

I use Spotify for the more popular bands music, I will hear a new album there if it's out then decide whether to buy it or not. Or, Listen to an album I do not have, just to see if I want to also buy that album. Sometimes, Spotify doesn't have an album at all so I have to buy the album.