Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says...

[TheCountOfNYC]

I’ll use my most recent “Holy crap they’re amazing” band as an example for why I still pay for Spotify.

I first discovered Haken about four years ago watching someone play a custom chart of Celestial Elixir in a fan made Guitar Hero clone. I instantly fell in love with the song, and with my Spotify subscription, found the rest of their discography and started to develop my fandom. Fast toward four years and in preparation for the release of Virus, I dropped sixty bucks on all six of their albums and the Restoration EP. I happily paid for the albums, but I would have never had the opportunity to hear all of their music and fall in love with them without having all of it in one place for a low price.

[Anguyen92]

How much is a Spotify Premium subscription in your country? Here, it is just 2USD per month.

If my concern is really I want all the subscription I paid for went to streaming revenue for the artists, I had to stream 667 songs a month ($2 monthly fee / $0.003 payout per stream) or 22 songs a day.

I average 40 songs on Spotify a day.

Artists just have to know how to game the system to maximize streaming revenue. Like Haken, with their intro tracks designated as a separate song, and a single epic, Messiah Complex, tracked into six parts.

What kind of deal do you have that gets you Spotify Premium for $2 a month?  For me, I have to wait around until Spotify offers me $10 for 3 months and then I pull the trigger on that, because I don't want to pay $10.00 a month on top of other expenses that I pay per month.

[Progmetty]

So much interesting information from every in this thread, my perspective on this has changed significantly since my post on the first page.

[Cool Chris]

So much interesting information from every in this thread, my perspective on this has changed significantly since my post on the first page.

Yes this has been a fascinating read. I have almost given up a couple times because I cannot keep up!

[erwinrafael]

How much is a Spotify Premium subscription in your country? Here, it is just 2USD per month.

If my concern is really I want all the subscription I paid for went to streaming revenue for the artists, I had to stream 667 songs a month ($2 monthly fee / $0.003 payout per stream) or 22 songs a day.

I average 40 songs on Spotify a day.

Artists just have to know how to game the system to maximize streaming revenue. Like Haken, with their intro tracks designated as a separate song, and a single epic, Messiah Complex, tracked into six parts.

What kind of deal do you have that gets you Spotify Premium for $2 a month?  For me, I have to wait around until Spotify offers me $10 for 3 months and then I pull the trigger on that, because I don't want to pay $10.00 a month on top of other expenses that I pay per month.

I think it is specific here in the Philippines. I have a Spotify Family subscription that is 4USD which me and my wife use. Well, most likely the payout from streams is much lower than the 0.003 USD because of the deal I got so I think I flattered myself when I said all my sub fee almost goes to the artists.

[SwedishGoose]

As I guess most here I only used Spotify to check out new stuff.
I buy CDs or downloads (often directly from the band or on bandcamp).

I have however started to use Spotify more after I bought a Smart Watch with eSim and Spotify. I leave the phone home when I run and use Spotify on the watch to listen to playlists with songs fitting for running.

I agree that bands should be payed more from Spotify but then again isn't Spotify still loosing money? No I looked and they recently started earning money.

Anyway I think the model is a bit flawed and they would need to up their earnings quite a bit to start paying bands more but that would loose them custumers.

[Nachtmerrie]

I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.

Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people.

I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.

I barely know anyone who still buys physical CD's or LP's except a few colleagues who are as much into metal as I am. Most of my friends use Spotify and don't think a second about the artist revenues. Most people feel they at least pay for their streams compared to the Napster/Limewire.

Like others said I mostly use Spotify to sample new music and for convenience reasons which at least makes my favorite bands a little more money compared to playing my old CD's in my car. You can't blame Spotify (which I think is a great product), if it wasn't them they would be someone else. They offer the right product for the right price. As much as I love to see my artist making some more money I don't see myself paying € 50 a month for Spotify and I think 95% agrees with me. So Spotify will be here to stay and that's something artists will have to deal with.

It's the same with buying physical stuff at live-shows or directly from the artist. I rather buy my CD over there but I'm not paying  € 20,00 when the same album is € 10 on Amazon. I've made an exception for Haken's Virus but paying the same price plus almost € 15 shipping costs isn't something I'm doing every single time.

So I would say that's the key for artists. How do you develop a model which is both attractive for you and for your fans.
Maybe it's a bit naive but I think bands like Dream Theater could play a role in creating platforms in their niche market by creating  platforms which allows smaller artist to sell their stuff a better margins and better prices for their fans.
I would instantly pay a monthly fee for a platform that allows me to stream music of a bunch of bands I really like and also has some exclusive stuff, sells physical, merch, downloads and more.

I don't understand that mindset. You have an opportunity to actually physically give the bands your money, and it all goes to them. Not only are you supporting the band, but you are also supporting the crew.

Just because I know it's cheaper, doesn't mean I would not pay $20. The Lesser known bands always run their own Merch tables, or are usually there after their set to sign stuff or take pictures. I usually wait till the line goes down then get in line, which is usually at the end so I can chat with the band members. I don't mind wasting money on Bands, honestly better wasted on them then on the $20 beer.

As I said I prefer to buy directly from the artists or at the merch stand during shows. I have no problem spending € 15 for a CD, € 25 for vinyl and € 25 for a t-shirt when I'm supporting the band directly. Those are the prices I see most of the times with bands like Haken and Leprous for example. But there's a limit to what I consider a fair price. There's no way I'm paying € 20 for a CD or € 35 for a simple t-shirt. As much as I love to support the band I don't have an endless supply of money.

The handling of the merch stand at shows for me is a great example how some bands can take better care of their business. Most of the times there's no one buying before the shows and tens of people after the show with still the same 1 or 2 guys at the stand. People leave because they don't want to wait or stuff is sold out. A lot of band could make much more out their merch. Encourage your fans to buy before and have a quick pickup after show, give them a discount for your webshop or whatever. The way professionals sports organizes their merch is a great example.

[MirrorMask]

I'm not even sure that the general concert goer knows and fully understand how bands earn much more from a direct sale at a show, than through online purchases. The bands themselves should make this more known, usually the singer at a certain point has the mandatory "you can find our stuff at the merch boot" speech during a gig, but 30 seconds more to actually explain why, if you want to buy music, you might as well do it at shows, wouldn't hurt.

[Zantera]

Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.

[The Walrus]

Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.

Really? Really?

[TAC]

Wait. Music is dead??

I swear I just bought a new album last week. And I'm getting one this week.

[Buddyhunter1]

The Death Of Music is a good Devin Townsend song.

[Stadler]

Let's have a look at another chart from that 2017 Citi report:



As you can see, from the total revenue of the whole industry (from all sources), the artists get a pretty small slice, which we know from elsewhere in the report is now around 12%. A similarly-sized but actually slightly bigger slice goes to pure profitability for music platforms (streaming services, radio services, etc.), while the largest slice - around a third of ALL industry revenue - goes to the costs of running those platforms, which will include marketing, exec salaries and so on. Looking at the two bars for music platforms, their profitability looks to be something like 30%. I expect the margins are similarly high for labels, maybe a bit lower, but the chart doesn't break it down between costs and profits. Still, the total money going to the labels is nearly twice what goes to the artists.

The Citi report really does have some interesting stuff in it, here's the link again: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D

To be fair, I can't see the chart (I'll check it on my non-work computer) but who has the risk?    How many artists have you heard complain that "so-and-so album tanked, because they didn't market it right!"?   

All those steps past the artist are INVESTMENTS.  It's not "boutique", but it is "risky" if you're investing in someone not named "Taylor", "Bruce" or "Beyonce". That record company is "investing" in a new product the same way that Maytag is investing in a new washing machine design.  Just think about it in pure numbers:   Sure, Taylor is going to sell 5 million copies; it costs a certain amount to put all that together, and the CD is going to sell for $12.99 or whatever.  Then there's the scalable costs of producing 5 million copies of that.   Liquid Tension Experiment has the same base costs in terms of studios, producers, artists, etc., and will still sell for $12.00 or thereabouts.  And their scalable costs are MORE, because there are less (there is no FLIPPING way that LTE pressed 5 million of ANY of their CDs).   That difference between the "5 million" and whatever LTE sells directly impacts the risk.   Taylor fluffs by 5%, and no harm no foul.  There's money to be made.  LTE fluffs by 5% and it's the difference between them making money or never making another record, not to mention a ton of drink coasters in John's basement. 

[Stadler]

I will also add that the position "hey, I use Spotify for sampling and then I buy stuff" is mostly unique for this forum and other dedicated music communities, at least as far as my country goes. No one, and I mean no one who I personally know in my country does this. Obviously the folks who go to concerts buy their CDs, but my friends who listen to metal? They either stream or pirate the shit out of it. My best friends don't make fun of me buying all the stuff, they know it's one of my hobbies, but my colleagues at work and friends by acquaintance, I've got laughed at by mentioning I still buy physical CDs.

Also I had a few requests to share my account on the streaming platform I use for which I pay yearly from these same people.

I have no issue with streaming platforms, I think they're necessary at this point. However I can understand the artists' and bands' frustration with this statement because it was pretty poorly worded, and even more poorly worded when taken out of context.

I barely know anyone who still buys physical CD's or LP's except a few colleagues who are as much into metal as I am. Most of my friends use Spotify and don't think a second about the artist revenues. Most people feel they at least pay for their streams compared to the Napster/Limewire.

Like others said I mostly use Spotify to sample new music and for convenience reasons which at least makes my favorite bands a little more money compared to playing my old CD's in my car. You can't blame Spotify (which I think is a great product), if it wasn't them they would be someone else. They offer the right product for the right price. As much as I love to see my artist making some more money I don't see myself paying € 50 a month for Spotify and I think 95% agrees with me. So Spotify will be here to stay and that's something artists will have to deal with.

It's the same with buying physical stuff at live-shows or directly from the artist. I rather buy my CD over there but I'm not paying  € 20,00 when the same album is € 10 on Amazon. I've made an exception for Haken's Virus but paying the same price plus almost € 15 shipping costs isn't something I'm doing every single time.

So I would say that's the key for artists. How do you develop a model which is both attractive for you and for your fans.
Maybe it's a bit naive but I think bands like Dream Theater could play a role in creating platforms in their niche market by creating  platforms which allows smaller artist to sell their stuff a better margins and better prices for their fans.
I would instantly pay a monthly fee for a platform that allows me to stream music of a bunch of bands I really like and also has some exclusive stuff, sells physical, merch, downloads and more.

I don't understand that mindset. You have an opportunity to actually physically give the bands your money, and it all goes to them. Not only are you supporting the band, but you are also supporting the crew.

Just because I know it's cheaper, doesn't mean I would not pay $20. The Lesser known bands always run their own Merch tables, or are usually there after their set to sign stuff or take pictures. I usually wait till the line goes down then get in line, which is usually at the end so I can chat with the band members. I don't mind wasting money on Bands, honestly better wasted on them then on the $20 beer.

Please go back and read my post above.   I go to anywhere from 15 to 30 shows a year more or less.  I can't double my spend at all of those shows.   I just can't.   If there's something special - like at the Last In Line show I went to, where Vinnie Appice came out unannounced and just hung at the table for a couple minutes, then sure.  If it's something that I cannot get anywhere else - like the EP at the Sabbath "The End" show, then sure.  Some bands are selling signed setlists, which I think is kinda cool (unless it's just a photocopy; I'll fall for the ruse if you at least throw a spot of tape in one of the corners, and rip one of the others!).  I have something like 2,000 CDs in my collection.  I can't pay double every time. 

The ONLY think I will buy at a stand and NOT elsewhere is a shirt, because I'm old school: if you didn't go to the show (or know someone who did and did you a solid) you shouldn't wear the shirt.

[Zantera]

Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.

Really? Really?

I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?

[The Walrus]

Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.

Really? Really?

I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?

It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.

[Elite]

Spotify (but again, let’s not assume they are the only one, there’s a lot of streaming services) are definitely partly responsible for killing the monetisation of music, but that’s also in part due to record companies jumping on the possibilities of digital distribution. I think it would be way better for music if each record company had their own streaming service and in this way more money could go to the artists.

I also think it’s ridiculous that you can listen to basically everything in the world for just 10 bucks a month. It should be way more than that, or say limited to ~1000 tracks. Wanna listen to more than that? Pay extra. Spotify should also make sure the actual money should go where it belong; the people creating the art. But frankly, there’s been so many screw-ups before the invention of Spotify in the music business, that this final(?) nail in the coffin can’t exactly be considered Spotify’s fault. They’re just jumping in on the enormous opportunity the actual music business (record companies) have failed to utilise.

[The Walrus]

Spotify (but again, let’s not assume they are the only one, there’s a lot of streaming services) are definitely partly responsible for killing the monetisation of music, but that’s also in part due to record companies jumping on the possibilities of digital distribution. I think it would be way better for music if each record company had their own streaming service and in this way more money could go to the artists.

I also think it’s ridiculous that you can listen to basically everything in the world for just 10 bucks a month. It should be way more than that, or say limited to ~1000 tracks. Wanna listen to more than that? Pay extra. Spotify should also make sure the actual money should go where it belong; the people creating the art. But frankly, there’s been so many screw-ups before the invention of Spotify in the music business, that this final(?) nail in the coffin can’t exactly be considered Spotify’s fault. They’re just jumping in on the enormous opportunity the actual music business (record companies) have failed to utilise.

But why should it be that way, the way you've proposed? 'cause it works for you? Everybody has a different capacity and thirst for music. What works for you might not work for me, but allowing everyone the freedom to listen to as much as they want works for everyone. That is fair. It is not Spotify's fault that people jump into an artistic medium that is saturated to all get out, often times playing niche music to a very limited audience with only so much time and money to devote to said art amongst all the other things they're consuming, and then cry about not making much money. How can we expect Spotify to pay this arbitrary 'fair' pay to literally hundreds of thousands of artists? A few smash hit rappers and pop stars would make them go broke if we were to apply 'fair' rules for a struggling prog band to them, and artists would still cry that they only made a few cents from their 20 minute jazz prog bluegrass epic.

EDIT: Just to be clear I'm not picking fights, just offering counterpoints

[ariich]

Let's have a look at another chart from that 2017 Citi report:



As you can see, from the total revenue of the whole industry (from all sources), the artists get a pretty small slice, which we know from elsewhere in the report is now around 12%. A similarly-sized but actually slightly bigger slice goes to pure profitability for music platforms (streaming services, radio services, etc.), while the largest slice - around a third of ALL industry revenue - goes to the costs of running those platforms, which will include marketing, exec salaries and so on. Looking at the two bars for music platforms, their profitability looks to be something like 30%. I expect the margins are similarly high for labels, maybe a bit lower, but the chart doesn't break it down between costs and profits. Still, the total money going to the labels is nearly twice what goes to the artists.

The Citi report really does have some interesting stuff in it, here's the link again: https://ir.citi.com/QnhL09FARMDbvMhnCWFtjkqYOlPmgXqWS5Wrjts%2B6usU7suR9o7uUEFwZNjmUfyrAn10iZxCkYc%3D

To be fair, I can't see the chart (I'll check it on my non-work computer) but who has the risk?    How many artists have you heard complain that "so-and-so album tanked, because they didn't market it right!"?   

All those steps past the artist are INVESTMENTS.  It's not "boutique", but it is "risky" if you're investing in someone not named "Taylor", "Bruce" or "Beyonce". That record company is "investing" in a new product the same way that Maytag is investing in a new washing machine design.  Just think about it in pure numbers:   Sure, Taylor is going to sell 5 million copies; it costs a certain amount to put all that together, and the CD is going to sell for $12.99 or whatever.  Then there's the scalable costs of producing 5 million copies of that.   Liquid Tension Experiment has the same base costs in terms of studios, producers, artists, etc., and will still sell for $12.00 or thereabouts.  And their scalable costs are MORE, because there are less (there is no FLIPPING way that LTE pressed 5 million of ANY of their CDs).   That difference between the "5 million" and whatever LTE sells directly impacts the risk.   Taylor fluffs by 5%, and no harm no foul.  There's money to be made.  LTE fluffs by 5% and it's the difference between them making money or never making another record, not to mention a ton of drink coasters in John's basement. 

Yes of course it's risky, and risk means a higher expected return on investment to compensate for the risk. That's part of why it's normal that creative industries can have higher margins than industries that are more functional/essential and therefore, by and large, less risky or volatile. But it's just as risky for the artists themselves who are also investing a huge amount of time and, often, a lot of cash as well.

To consider a completely different industry that's not really comparable, but just as a thought experiment, let's consider supermarkets and food producers. The retailers have the power as there are only a few of them, they're big and wealthy and household names, and they're the ones that actually sell to the customers. The food producers are mostly small and can only make a living by selling to the retailers (this is massively oversimplified by the way, but again it's just to prompt thinking). There are big issues in the food industry with how retailers take advantage of producers, but 1. margins are quite low for both retailers and producers, and 2. most countries have a regulator that specifically regulates the relationship between the two to minimise those sorts of problem.

[Elite]

Spotify (but again, let’s not assume they are the only one, there’s a lot of streaming services) are definitely partly responsible for killing the monetisation of music, but that’s also in part due to record companies jumping on the possibilities of digital distribution. I think it would be way better for music if each record company had their own streaming service and in this way more money could go to the artists.

I also think it’s ridiculous that you can listen to basically everything in the world for just 10 bucks a month. It should be way more than that, or say limited to ~1000 tracks. Wanna listen to more than that? Pay extra. Spotify should also make sure the actual money should go where it belong; the people creating the art. But frankly, there’s been so many screw-ups before the invention of Spotify in the music business, that this final(?) nail in the coffin can’t exactly be considered Spotify’s fault. They’re just jumping in on the enormous opportunity the actual music business (record companies) have failed to utilise.

But why should it be that way, the way you've proposed? 'cause it works for you? Everybody has a different capacity and thirst for music. What works for you might not work for me, but allowing everyone the freedom to listen to as much as they want works for everyone. That is fair. It is not Spotify's fault that people jump into an artistic medium that is saturated to all get out, often times playing niche music to a very limited audience with only so much time and money to devote to said art amongst all the other things they're consuming, and then cry about not making much money. How can we expect Spotify to pay this arbitrary 'fair' pay to literally hundreds of thousands of artists? A few smash hit rappers and pop stars would make them go broke if we were to apply 'fair' rules for a struggling prog band to them, and artists would still cry that they only made a few cents from their 20 minute jazz prog bluegrass epic.

EDIT: Just to be clear I'm not picking fights, just offering counterpoints

I’m not saying this  because it would work for me. Frankly, it would, because I don’t listen to that much music at all, but that’s not the point. This system completely devalues recorded music as an art form when it’s available for basically free. Spotify doesn’t seem to care about this at all, or at least it doesn’t look like they’re going to counter this. I think at this point though there’s no going back, because the world is used to ‘free’ music now and doesn’t value the art form at all (generally speaking!) and I think that’s a bad thing.

I also think lots of people don’t really listen to music at all and just like having background noise on for no real reason, but that’s a completely different discussion altogether. I just wanted to mention this, because I believe this mass consumption of not really listening but still having music on is detrimental to the idea that music should have value.

[Zantera]

Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.

Really? Really?

I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?

It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.

I guess i'm oldschool, I prefer owning something and collecting things I like rather than renting it (which is basically what you do with Spotify). If you love Spotify for the accessibility that's fine but why defend a company that screws over the artists? The sad reality is the only benefit to being on Spotify is exposure which in itself can be good but when you get nothing financially out of it then it's just kind of sad for the music industry.

As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.

It's a bit of a double edged sword for me though. I got some of my own music on Spotify because people do use it and it brings some exposure and accessibility, but on the flip side if someone burned the Spotify headquarters down with gasoline i'd probably bring out the champagne. 

[The Walrus]

Can't say i'm surprised the CEO of the death of music also has no idea how good music is made.

Really? Really?

I mean even setting aside my personal opinion of Spotify (glorified pirating) it just doesn't strike me as a company run by people who are passionate about music at all. Sure, everything is about money to a certain extent but his comments makes me question if it's possible to have any more of a cynical approach to music as an art form?

It's a business in a capitalist economy, my guy. It's not the first one to exist in the music industry. Spotify is anything but the DEATH of music, that's some extreme hyperbole; I would argue YOU are the one with the extreme cynicism in this case. "Glorified piracy"? Please. That's like paying for your Netflix sub is glorified piracy, or that going to a movie theater is glorified piracy because half the cost of the ticket goes straight to the venue instead of directly to the filmmakers.

I guess i'm oldschool, I prefer owning something and collecting things I like rather than renting it (which is basically what you do with Spotify). If you love Spotify for the accessibility that's fine but why defend a company that screws over the artists? The sad reality is the only benefit to being on Spotify is exposure which in itself can be good but when you get nothing financially out of it then it's just kind of sad for the music industry.

As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.

It's a bit of a double edged sword for me though. I got some of my own music on Spotify because people do use it and it brings some exposure and accessibility, but on the flip side if someone burned the Spotify headquarters down with gasoline i'd probably bring out the champagne. 

I defend Spotify for a few reasons. 1) It finally put the nail in my piracy coffin. Even if something isn't on Spotify, I learned to not go out and pirate it, and to enjoy what I can find with my subscription. 2) It opened up a world of new music for me. I probably wouldn't do roulettes here if I couldn't use Spotify for discovering all the new music, nevermind all the music I was discovering before running roulettes here via Spotify. There's always something new. 3) The feeling of paying a legal sub fee and not feeling grimey about doing something illegal or unethical is nice and something I appreciate now that I'm not a teenager who used the excuse of not having a job to steal. 4) The vast library ensures I have everything in one place. 5) I can incorporate my physical collection into my digital library by syncing my ripped MP3s with my Spotify library. It's awesome. 6) I have it all on my phone. No need to carry a dedicated MP3 player anymore with a 256 gig SD card in the phone. 7) Bluetooth on my phone + Spotify = car stereo connection and wireless earbuds outdoors and at work.

Spotify isn't the only venue someone can put their music on, either. I don't think it's fair to act like Spotify determines whether or not an artist's career lives or dies and that they're the sole problem. What about Google Play? Apple/iTunes? Tidal? Pandora? Everything else? What about everybody who uploads full discographies to YouTube every day, where no royalties ever go to anyone?

[TAC]

Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.

Is this how it is every Friday? I was on their site and didn't see it referenced.

I have bought stuff from Bandcamp before. I actually created an account this morning.
tacdtf
which is my username on Spotify as well.

[goo-goo]

Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.

Is this how it is every Friday? I was on their site and didn't see it referenced.

I have bought stuff from Bandcamp before. I actually created an account this morning.
tacdtf
which is my username on Spotify as well.

IIRC, Bandcamp Fridays are only on the 1st Friday of every month at least for the time being.

[HOF]

Bandcamp is great - I hope it sticks around for the distant future. Part of me kinda wonders if all of these "Bandcamp fridays" where they waive 100% of their share of revenue and give it all directly to the artists is shooting themselves in the foot, despite it being super generous of them. Though I guess they wouldn't keep doing those if it weren't a net positive for them at the end of the day.

Is this how it is every Friday? I was on their site and didn't see it referenced.

I have bought stuff from Bandcamp before. I actually created an account this morning.
tacdtf
which is my username on Spotify as well.

There’s a link to this on the front page:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/update-on-bandcamp-fridays

It’s every first Friday of the month, so just once a month. The next one is this Friday.

[TAC]

OK, I see the link now..

[Ben_Jamin]

This just adds another reason for me to go and take a Music Business course. At least, to get an even better understanding of it. 

[Buddyhunter1]

There’s a link to this on the front page:
https://daily.bandcamp.com/features/update-on-bandcamp-fridays

It’s every first Friday of the month, so just once a month. The next one is this Friday.

I think I've bought at least one album every one of these so far. Already know I'm getting Lift Yr. Skinny Fists Like Antennas To Heaven this friday.

[erwinrafael]

As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out. Spotify in that sense is a lose-lose from my perspective because you're either using the free version which is crammed with commercials OR you have to pay a subscription fee where none of the money really goes into supporting any of the artists anyways.

Where is this argument coming from? If you pay a sub fee but do not listen, Spotify profits. But if you listen a lot, a big portion of the fixed fee you pay does go to the artists. That is the Spotify business model, they are looking to profit on subscribers who do not listen much. They do not profit from heavy listeners.

Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?

[TAC]

As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out.

How is youtube any different? At least if you sample on Spotify the artist is getting "something". What do they get from Youtube. Half the time it's some user who uploads the material and not the band themself.

[Anguyen92]

As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out.

How is youtube any different? At least if you sample on Spotify the artist is getting "something". What do they get from Youtube. Half the time it's some user who uploads the material and not the band themself.

I think it depends.  Nowadays, from what I recall, Youtube has been very trigger-happy flagging content that has copyrighted content like music so the people uploading the material don't even profit from it.  I think.

[cramx3]

Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?

Great question.  As someone who buys albums almost exclusively on Amazon (other thans physicals of my top bands, or the occasional merch stand purchase) and loves how it's cheap and delivered on demand (AKA no shipping delays on release) I really enjoy it because I feel that's more direct to the artist PLUS I own the MP3s and can easily put it on my phone and other devices.  But, how does this compare to streaming online without a subscription, streaming online with a subscription, buying on amazon/itunes, buying at a merch stand, buying at a retail store.

As far as the "i want to sample stuff before i buy it" i think thats a reasonable argument and I usually always buy stuff I have heard before but there's other sources like Youtube or whatever else where you can check a band out.

How is youtube any different? At least if you sample on Spotify the artist is getting "something". What do they get from Youtube. Half the time it's some user who uploads the material and not the band themself.

So from my experience posting lyric videos to copyrighted music on youtube, youtube has an agreement to allow you to post most copyrighted material and their own algorithm, content id (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_ID_(system)), discovers it and automatically directs ALL ad revenue from that video to the copyright owner.  I don't believe the system is perfect, but I get the messages immedialety if I upload any music and I'm cool with it although I always wonder how much the band actually gets from it.  Better than nothing I assume. 

[goo-goo]

Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?

They get 60-70% of the album price.

[TAC]

Question. How much goes to an artist for a 9.99USD album purchase in iTunes?

They get 60-70% of the album price.

They do?? That seems way too high. That doesn't go through a label filter first?

[King Postwhore]

No way man. I've seen band members on Facebook give %'s.  Let me screenshot it.