Skip to main content


"Spotify’s CEO is now a billionaire but it takes artists 334 streams to make $1. The company just enacted a plan to completely demonetize smaller artists. Under the new policy, tracks that get under a certain threshold of annual streams will receive no money from the company. Groups like United Musicians and Allied Workers (ig: weareumaw) are fighting to save their industry."

#Union #capitalism

reshared this

in reply to Ned Yeung

serious question: why don't the unions create their own platforms?
in reply to Ned Yeung

I keep wondering how artists are able to share their art. Everything about the art world is in flux right now…
in reply to Ned Yeung

I've been on the fence about it myself. Some counterpoints to the Spotify-angry:

- Spotify's earnings come from subscriptions, not from artists
- Ed Sheeran earned $36M for 5 tracks
- The industry had been gouging customers and piracy was normalized
- For fringe/unsigned artists, Spotify offers a global audience and that small trickle is one trickle more than they would have had before
- This was an industry that needed a disruption

But if this latest is true, well - to hell with them.

in reply to Zazzoo 🇨🇦

@zazzoo I see this way:

Musicians have through the ages been getting all their earnings taken by producers. The old problem with owners getting everything and creators/workers getting nothing.

Piracy put a dent in the unearned profits of ownership. Thus, Spotify came along as a solution to piracy, to retain some of lost earnings for owners/producers, with complete disregard of the creators.

Nobody looks out for the musicians.

in reply to Ned Yeung

On that nothing but firm agreement - the musicians are always the victims here. When they get a deal they're instantly put in debt for production, distribution and promotion. The royalties are clawed back by the label to cover this on top of the label's cut. Most only make a living from live shows and merch sales, not their music itself.

Yes, piracy puts a dent in the studios, but you can't hurt them without hurting the artists, too, because you can't erase that debt.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Zazzoo 🇨🇦

@zazzoo Spotifiy's earnings come from subscribers and advertisers because Spotify sells artists work cheaply, and takes a margin so that artists' take is even lower. Sure superstars with billions of streams make bank, but most working musicians get screwed even more than they did before.
in reply to Dave Plummer :TheCDN4: :mfv:

@Plumbert Trust me, it's not my intent to play Spotify apologist. Artists have been getting the shaft for over a century and the RIAA is a cartel.

But compare per-play royalties vs buying a CD. When I pay $12 for a CD it's a one-time thing. My royalty contribution is locked in regardless of what I think of the music on it. But per-play over-compensates those with mass appeal.

The first is unfair to consumers, the latter unfair to talented artists. There's room for a third option, perhaps.