Is Spotify stealing artists money?

[ray4410]

these girls know how to do it and make money from streaming
if it wasn't for streaming i would not have heard of them but since finding them i have purchased several albums from them and have more on the way,they have their own record label/studio their dad does most of the production they are solely independent so i know that my money goes directly to them. 
 

[April Snow]

Wow so many viewpoints, and they are all right in a way 

 

Reminds me how Prince refused to allow streaming services to have his music when he was alive - he allowed it with Tidal for a while but then withdrew it due to the "low pay rate" and the ripping off of artists & had a bust up with Jay Z over it.

He even would not allow his videos on You Tube!

He said he created his music and he deserved to be properly paid for it.

 

But Prince could afford to do that ...... (now the Estate has approved his music on the platforms of course since his passing).

 

Tis a tough call for many struggling and new artists though.

You Tube has been amazing for many.

I try and buy from new artists directly via Band Camp if they are on there.

 

I do not pay for any streaming services at all but I do admit to using free Spotify to hear something that may come on my radar then buy the physical media if I like it enough or else move on. So I use the free Spotty for discovery I suppose.

 

But most people likely do not do this as most seem to listen to music as background music and care little for it or give it much thought how the money gets carved up. They treat it like listening to the radio I guess?

 

But I get it, Spotify also have to survive in a competitive world too and try and keep things going as a business - and like any business want to make a profit too - but they seem to be struggling on all fronts? 

 

There is no real answer - only the rich artists can afford to take a mega stance I guess - 

tis tough times all round - and I know of a few people that due to the economic times have cut off their streaming services altogether just to pay their rent ............(Netflix, Spotify etc) - so maybe subscriptions have dropped too? 

 

Interesting reading the comments here though, the different viewpoints all of them are valid really.............

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by April Snow

[Dingbat]

14 hours ago, LHC said:

Things are getting harder for emerging musicians:

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-04/australian-live-music-venues-struggling-closing-down/103161974

 

I saw that already before you posted it. Some of the Independent acts in Australia have been touring recently overseas, like to Europe, for instance. Playing live is probably the only way they can make some sort of living from it. If you follow a lot of the local acts, some musicians are in multiple bands, with releases from everything they are in. There are various other things they do to try and drum up support and interest. It's not an ideal world, but I guess they're doing what they can, notwithstanding whatever Spotify or other streaming services are doing.

[blownaway]

6 hours ago, April Snow said:

Wow so many viewpoints, and they are all right in a way 

 

Reminds me how Prince refused to allow streaming services to have his music when he was alive - he allowed it with Tidal for a while but then withdrew it due to the "low pay rate" and the ripping off of artists & had a bust up with Jay Z over it.

He even would not allow his videos on You Tube!

He said he created his music and he deserved to be properly paid for it.

 

But Prince could afford to do that ...... (now the Estate has approved his music on the platforms of course since his passing).

 

Tis a tough call for many struggling and new artists though.

You Tube has been amazing for many.

I try and buy from new artists directly via Band Camp if they are on there.

 

I do not pay for any streaming services at all but I do admit to using free Spotify to hear something that may come on my radar then buy the physical media if I like it enough or else move on. So I use the free Spotty for discovery I suppose.

 

But most people likely do not do this as most seem to listen to music as background music and care little for it or give it much thought how the money gets carved up. They treat it like listening to the radio I guess?

 

But I get it, Spotify also have to survive in a competitive world too and try and keep things going as a business - and like any business want to make a profit too - but they seem to be struggling on all fronts? 

 

There is no real answer - only the rich artists can afford to take a mega stance I guess - 

tis tough times all round - and I know of a few people that due to the economic times have cut off their streaming services altogether just to pay their rent ............(Netflix, Spotify etc) - so maybe subscriptions have dropped too? 

 

Interesting reading the comments here though, the different viewpoints all of them are valid really.............

 

 

 

No pirating ha ha 

[LHC]

Interesting views on the reasons for Spotify's cost cutting. It is claimed here that the "underlying cost of their music is like 82%", i.e. their gross profit on music streaming is only 18%. Not sure where he sourced that figure from.

 

 

[proftournesol]

I know that the Spotify series on Netflix was fictional and loosely based on the real Spotify, but I think they did get something right: Spotify wanted to provide easy streaming access to its customers but made the mistake of believing its customers to be the end-user: us. The record companies wouldn't license music to them until they realised the real 'customer' was the record company, not us. It's the record companies that take the biggest cut of the pie.

[Niktech]

The problem for Spotify is that their core business model  is trying to make a profit from streaming music and remain competitive with the other offerings from Apple and AmazonHD, and they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for bad ideas to do so. However, Spotify can’t win, or possibly survive up against the likes of Amazon and Apple to whom streaming music is not their core business, and is perhaps largely an irrelevant  concern whether or not they make a profit at all from streaming music. The core business for Amazon is Prime and Market Place.  Apple has its product ecosystem. Steaming in terms of revenue is chump change.

[April Snow]

1 hour ago, Niktech said:

The problem for Spotify is that their core business model  is trying to make a profit from streaming music and remain competitive with the other offerings from Apple and AmazonHD, and they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for bad ideas to do so. However, Spotify can’t win, or possibly survive up against the likes of Amazon and Apple to whom streaming music is not their core business, and is perhaps largely an irrelevant  concern whether or not they make a profit at all from streaming music. The core business for Amazon is Prime and Market Place.  Apple has its product ecosystem. Steaming in terms of revenue is chump change.

I think this is 100% correct - and likely also the reason they did not end up streaming Hi Rez when they announced an upgrade to do so must be over a year or so ago now? Economics just did not allow for it. They have all their eggs in one basket unlike Apple & Amazon as you say..............

Edited December 8, 2023 by April Snow

[POV]

Can’t help but wonder if they would be better off dumping the free service, though I don’t know how much revenue they make from advertising.  It’s hard to place a value on something you give away though.

[blownaway]

On 09/12/2023 at 8:32 AM, April Snow said:

I think this is 100% correct - and likely also the reason they did not end up streaming Hi Rez when they announced an upgrade to do so must be over a year or so ago now? Economics just did not allow for it. They have all their eggs in one basket unlike Apple & Amazon as you say..............

Spotify does do High Resolution in their Premium package, I know as I paid for it. Not the level of Qobuz I now have, but pretty good. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by blownaway

[April Snow]

5 minutes ago, blownaway said:

Spotify does do High Resolution in their Premium package, I know as I paid for it. Not the level of Qobuz I now have, but pretty good. 

Oh cool, I just checked - coz it was only CD quality for ages, but said they do up to 320 now? I wonder how much of that they have? If it is a big library would be worth considering as I like their interface and suggestions they do.

[blownaway]

Just now, April Snow said:

Oh cool, I just checked - coz it was only CD quality for ages, but said they do up to 320 now? I wonder how much of that they have? If it is a big library would be worth considering as I like their interface and suggestions they do.

You can share w family too, so far 

[blownaway]

[POV]

12 minutes ago, blownaway said:

Spotify does do High Resolution in their Premium package, I know as I paid for it. Not the level of Qobuz I now have, but pretty good. 

 

6 minutes ago, April Snow said:

Oh cool, I just checked - coz it was only CD quality for ages, but said they do up to 320 now? I wonder how much of that they have? If it is a big library would be worth considering as I like their interface and suggestions they do.

I’m not understanding this.  Spotify does not do high resolution no matter which package you take.

 

320kbps is lower resolution to CD quality which is 1200-1400 kbps.

[blownaway]

7 minutes ago, POV said:

 

I’m not understanding this.  Spotify does not do high resolution no matter which package you take.

 

320kbps is lower resolution to CD quality which is 1200-1400 kbps.

Yes I am confused now

[blownaway]

Its dishonest as they say 'Premium' is High Quality Audio, which from what I can see, it clearly isn't?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by blownaway

[April Snow]

46 minutes ago, POV said:

 

I’m not understanding this.  Spotify does not do high resolution no matter which package you take.

 

320kbps is lower resolution to CD quality which is 1200-1400 kbps.

Ahhhh then I was right as I thought - the high rez did not come to fruition .............

[LHC]

Spotify Preiumum does offer streaming rate of 320kbps but the music being streamed is not high resolution or CD resolution (until Spotify Hi-Fi arrives if ever). For comparsion Amazon and Apple Music both offer high resolution CD quality music but their streaming rates are capped at 256kbps. [Edit: corrected myself, that low capped rate was for certain platforms only]

Edited December 10, 2023 by LHC

[POV]

52 minutes ago, blownaway said:

Its dishonest as they say 'Premium' is High Quality Audio, which from what I can see, it clearly isn't?

 

 

 

 

 

Well I guess it’s all relative.  High Quality is an entirely subjective term.

Compared to 128kbps that you get with free version, 320kbps is certainly ’higher quality’.

[LHC]

My bad I should have checked my numbers before posting. A second go at this.

 

Apple Music offers three tiers of music: High Quality (256kbps AAC); Lossless (ALAC 24 bits/48kHz); Hi-Res Lossless (ALAC 24-bit/192kHz). That means they don't specify their streaming bitrate for lossless and hi-res lossless. 

 

On the iPhone music preference setting they gave three examples of data transferred for streaming a three-minute song (approximate):

• 6MB with High Quality;
• 36MB with Lossless;
• 145MB with hi-Res Lossless

Doing some quick sums with the converstion of 1MB = 8192kb, we can approximate their average bitrate to be:

• 273kbps for High Quality;
• 1638kbps for Lossless;
• 6599kbps for high-res lossless

 

[ray4410]

using Spotify Premium and streaming through a high quality usb reclocker and a decent dac into your system the low bit rate can sound very good ,i have done direct comparisons of the same track being played on a high end SACD player then switch to Spotify and the steamed version can sound just as good sometimes better,i have tried both Qobuz hi rez and Tidal hi-fi but much prefer Spotify for its music catalogue and ease of use and as i say it sound's very good to me, my money my preference. 

[betty boop]

9 hours ago, LHC said:

Spotify Preiumum does offer streaming rate of 320kbps but the music being streamed is not high resolution or CD resolution (until Spotify Hi-Fi arrives if ever). For comparsion Amazon and Apple Music both offer high resolution CD quality music but their streaming rates are capped at 256kbps. [Edit: corrected myself, that low capped rate was for certain platforms only]

yep pretty ordinary after all this time still no cd quality lossless.. especially since apple been doing this for a while now  ?

[Guest]

Source: https://freeyourmusic.com/blog/spotify-royalty-calculator

 

USD of course, and assuming a 70/30 split (Spotify keeping 30%) and 70% going to rights holder / label / artist, that's still a significant sum going to the world's biggest artists at the time the above chart was formulated.

 

Perhaps it needs a sliding scale to actually help newer (and much smaller) artists. Perhaps it should be like Formula 1, where the lowest finishing teams in the season get more time in the wind tunnel for the following season than the highest ranking teams. I.e - the per stream rate is higher for new artists than established ones - but then how is that fair to the ones that are just that good (as judged by the numbers above, not by me!)? 

 

So Drake could potentially have earned, let's say 25% of the 70% share = USD $35M from Spotify. How much is enough? How much is fair? What sort of money should artists be making? There are many artists that IMO are earning WAY too much money today. Just like many sports people/athletes - we're talking obscene amounts of money. It poses a moral/ethical question (for me personally) - should a rapper (or any artist) be earning many multiples what (according to a quick Google), the world's top 1% neurosurgeon earns (around USD$4M per year).

 

What is it, we as music enthusiasts want? The smaller, local and emerging talents to earn more money (fair enough, too)? Because it seems to me that the world's biggest artists are actually earning significant money from Spotify (and I assume other platforms) if the above is anything to go by. That's not then taking into account endorsements, concerts, merchandise, appearances etc. 

 

Is it a case of disparity between small and large artists? Did that problem not already exist before streaming emerged?

 

I don't really have an opinion on any of this as I haven't spent enough time understanding it (I don't read mainstream media so have seen the headlines in the past but not looked into it in any real detail).  I most certainly don't have the answers either ...

[blownaway]

On 10/12/2023 at 9:57 PM, POV said:

Well I guess it’s all relative.  High Quality is an entirely subjective term.

Compared to 128kbps that you get with free version, 320kbps is certainly ’higher quality’.

Well if you like to support Spotify deceptive practices go ahead

Clearly we understand what people expect 

subjective is a genius way of deception and their intention 

[LHC]

A different perspective from the artists and content creators point of view. Even though Spotify paid them a lot less than other platforms, they still use Spotify because it offers them a much better creator experience and benefits. Naturally they won't use Spotify exclusively.