Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Says...

[ytserush]

The criticism about Spotify's limitations baffles me because imo it's limitless (other than the very few artists who aren't on it) and has opened up entirely new ways of listening to and appreciating music for me. Spotify also has a bunch of options and settings that make it convenient for me to use (last.fm scrobbling, equalizer, car view, ability to instantly look up and recover any playlists you've ever made). Not saying you're wrong, everyone's different, but I see no limitations to it. And as far as 'easy' vs. 'digging'... hell, thanks to Spotify I've found more underground, obscure, wild experimental music than I EVER thought existed.

This likely doesn't bother most people, but one big limitation with it is the lack of customization. Say you want to edit all the movements of Messiah Complex together into one track so it all plays together whenever it comes up on shuffle. Tough shit. Or if there's a track with one of those stupid "hidden songs" resulting in there being 10 minutes of silence that you'd rather just edit out. No can do. I recently got fed up with the ridiculously quiet vocal mixing on Devin Townsend's The Death Of Music (topical ) so I went into Cubase and did some light mastering work on it and got it sounding much better. Was only able to do that because I had the actual file on my computer.

That actually BURNS me.  I'm "that guy".  I have the three different mixes of Rainbow Rising.  I have two mixes of Nektar's a Tab In The Ocean.   I have both the US and UK mix of Whitesnake's "Slide It In".   Too often, the services give you what the artist is willing to license to you at that time.  So for a while there, every time you wanted to hear "Crazy Train", you got Mike Borden and Robert Trujillo instead of Lee Kerslake and Bob Daisley.  No thanks, amigo.

Well there's that too. Who decides which version is being used and what happens when it's the "wrong" one? Are they even labeled correctly?

[gzarruk]

I was just thinking about Instagram stories with music added (which is a really cool feature), do they also count as another "play" on a song for the artists? Not that it would make a huge difference, but at least I have uploaded a lot of stories with DT songs using Instagram music (whick I assume is working with Spotify or some other streaming platform), so hope I at least made them a couple extra bucks

[Stadler]

Here's a question I was gonna pose at the Haken thread but thought it may be relevant to the discussion here.
I'm trying to buy their live CD/DVD release. Generally, with relatively smaller bands, I like to buy releases by going to their website and seeing how they want me to buy it, as oppose to just straight from Amazon.
Haken's website, as does a lot of bands, redirected me to another website for merch called Omerch.
Now that release, entitled L-1VE, will cost me $42 shipping included, if I bought it from Omerch. And 20$ if I bought it from Amazon.
Does the doubled price mean that the Omerch website shares more of my money with Haken? Or is the $42 actual cost for the release and shipping while Amazon's $20 is a matter of Amazon being the virtual Walmart and crushing competition just cause they can afford it?
Largely naive question, I know and I have a feeling I already know the answer. But I don't like to lean on my assumptions only because they sound logical to me.

There still seems to be a value judgment, though, percolating under the discussion.  It's fair to say that artists get on board with distributors and labels in the first place because they are, in essence, the "Walmart" of music and "can afford it".   We - meaning, people in general - are seemingly all over the map when it comes to this stuff.  Volume, efficiency of scale, and distributed costs are either a good thing or they're not, and it shouldn't matter WHO in the chain we're throwing our hat in with.  Many people - both here in the P/R tread and generally - are seemingly begging the government to punish companies and corporations that don't do this (this is essentially the argument against "Big Pharma", another judgmental turn of phrase), but here, because it's "Spotify" and it's a pet interest of many, it's seems that many people - generally and here - think it's bad. 

The direct route is a limiter for some of these artists.  Anyone follow Fish over the years? And remember the problems he used to have with the distribution of his material, which was essentially out of his house?   Fish is probably a bad example because of his numerous "cunning plans" over the years, but in my opinion, he's an artist that did not walk the line between "major label" (EMI) and "DIY distribution" very well.    I think his inability to latch on to a global entity to sell his product hurt him over the span of his career.   He's probably doing okay now because of the span of his catalogue, but that's sheer will rather than any precise business plan.  IMO, Dream Theater is a band that is the exact opposite.  They rode the wave almost perfectly.   

[ZirconBlue]

People have been listening to "free music" for a long time. It's called FM radio.

And if Spoitify wants to make more money then sell ads just like radio does.

They already do that on the free version of Spotify.  People pay for Premium accounts to go ad-free.

[Anguyen92]

Yep.  Roughly 10 minutes of music and then you get ads for like 90 seconds.  Some of them are naturally pretty annoying (and sometimes even louder than the songs on our playlist).

[Evermind]

Yeah. Hello! You could've been listening to a CD right now! You could've been listening to a vinyl, or a cassette, or to your local radio. But instead, you're listening to this ad right now, so thank you for that!

[King Postwhore]

[cramx3]

 

Funny though, to give an example, I think I am about to get my first youtube check of $100 (the minimum to actually get a pay out).  I've been making videos for years and have over 1.25 million views (although much of that is of copyright material that I cannot make money off of) but still the point is, you don't really make much money from streaming views/listens unless you go viral and are extremely popular.   According to my analytics, I make about 7 dollars a month, but have actually been trending towards 10 since (without concerts) I have been more consistently making original gaming videos.  Hardly anything to buy a nice meal let alone split it with anyone else.

[TAC]

Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.

To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?

[Kotowboy]

I get confused when people say that Metallica's Hardwired to Self Destruct is too long.

1. It's a double album released eight years after Death Magnetic. I should bloody hope it's a double.

2. We have iTunes and iPods now. Just playlist the songs you like.

3. I'd have felt gypped if after 8 years - Hardwired to Self Destruct was only 40 mins long. The songs you don't enjoy as much don't make the good songs worse somehow.

[TAC]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/music-streamers-win-appeal-over-royalty-hike-for-song-owners/ar-BB17QvI9?li=BBnb2gh

[cramx3]

Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.

To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?

If they play the music in the background, like they do in reaction videos, it's copyrighted so you don't make money off those as far as I know but you might be able to get shared revenue where because most of it might be original you get a percentage and the copyright owner gets their cut.

[TAC]

Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.

To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?

If they play the music in the background, like they do in reaction videos, it's copyrighted so you don't make money off those as far as I know but you might be able to get shared revenue where because most of it might be original you get a percentage and the copyright owner gets their cut.

But what about the gaming videos? Do the "Games" make the money if some dude posts a play through video?

[cramx3]

Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.

To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?

If they play the music in the background, like they do in reaction videos, it's copyrighted so you don't make money off those as far as I know but you might be able to get shared revenue where because most of it might be original you get a percentage and the copyright owner gets their cut.

But what about the gaming videos? Do the "Games" make the money if some dude posts a play through video?

No, gaming videos are not copyrighted.  Gaming companies usually promote people playing their games and creating content these days as it's pretty much free advertisement from their perspective

[TAC]

Yeah, that's right. I remember reading about some of the top guys actually being paid by the game companies.

[Stadler]

You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.)  Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).   

[Anguyen92]

You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.)  Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).   

I mean, you are not wrong.  Five Finger Death Punch has worn Monster Energy Drink apparel in some photoshoots and they are one of the more popular modern bands out there today.

[cramx3]

You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.)  Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).   

And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing.  A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video.  I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them.  If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about. 

[jingle.boy]

Tapout shirt maybe?

[Anguyen92]

Tapout shirt maybe?

Another thing I wouldn't be surprised if Five Finger Death Punch eventually gets a sponsorship from them to sport the shirts.  People would say their music suits people that typically wears Tapout shirts.

[ytserush]

Cram, the games aren't copyrighted.

To me, a reaction video to a song would be the same as a video game video, no?

This why reaction videos are a thing? (never watched one myself.)

[ytserush]

You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.)  Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).   

And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing.  A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video.  I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them.  If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.

Do influencers have the same chance at making it big as bands these days? Seems like they get more help than musicians do but maybe the goal is different.

[cramx3]

You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.)  Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).   

And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing.  A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video.  I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them.  If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.

Do influencers have the same chance at making it big as bands these days? Seems like they get more help than musicians do but maybe the goal is different.

I really don't know.  The dynamics are very different between a band and influencer so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.  But I don't think your chances of making it big in either are good at all.  An influencer may be someone totally DIY which makes me think its more likely to be profitable vs. a band, but even then, I really don't know.  You've got to be really popular and big to actually make money on these platforms. 

[ytserush]

You need to start cutting deals with apparel/hat companies and wear their product (not kidding at all; my daughter does Tik Tok stuff, she only has like 1,000 followers or some shit, and some woman sent her a pair of earrings she made, to wear in her videos.)  Or put a Monster Energy Drink in your hand (again, no joke).   

And that's how you become an "influencer" and that is very much a thing.  A newer YT trend is to cut a promo for a product right in the beginning of your video.  I get annoyed when I see this as a viewer, but at least I know that person got a deal to promote a product and is getting paid so more power to them so I don't hold it against them.  If someone wanted to give me some money to do the same or to wear their tshirt or something, I'd probably do it as long as I felt like the product was something I wouldn't be ashamed or weirded out about.

Do influencers have the same chance at making it big as bands these days? Seems like they get more help than musicians do but maybe the goal is different.

I really don't know.  The dynamics are very different between a band and influencer so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.  But I don't think your chances of making it big in either are good at all.  An influencer may be someone totally DIY which makes me think its more likely to be profitable vs. a band, but even then, I really don't know.  You've got to be really popular and big to actually make money on these platforms.

Thanks.


Didn't think so, but I'm really not that close to it.

[MinistroRaven]

This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?

[jingle.boy]

This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?

I might have some if I knew what you were talking about.

[Sebastián Pratesi]

This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?

I might have some if I knew what you were talking about.

He's probably talking about this:

https://press.soundcloud.com/197001-soundcloud-introduces-fan-powered-royalties

[Nekov]

How did this work before? I was under the impression that people could buy albums or songs that were available on the platform. Didn't that money go to the band directly?

[MinistroRaven]

This seems to be a good move from Soundcloud to the artists...thoughts?

I might have some if I knew what you were talking about.

He's probably talking about this:

https://press.soundcloud.com/197001-soundcloud-introduces-fan-powered-royalties

hahaha, yes, that's what I was talking about, I forgot to paste the link, thanks!