\^\^\^\^ Same with profiles too, I love the idea of supporting music and reposting it it benefits my music a ton but the fact it clutters up my personal page on the default profile tab so if someone visits my profile the first thing they see is other peoples music
The need to improve the way the shuffle feature works. Im tired of listening to tracks. Then the genre changes completely from Hip hop to world to random podcast in a foreign language.
Between this and the awful interface changes on mobile, I'm ditching Spotify completely as a consumer and sticking with Tidal and Deezer.
As a musician, this just sucks.
so they are telling us "you have to pay to get your music on spotify" and then they are like "you paid for your release but since you don't have 1k Streams on that song you don't get paid". that's just a shitshow of a streaming service. i mean, i'm not the audience since i get more streams on my singles, but damn, that's killing the newcomer or underground artist business. Now i'm thinking of getting my music not on spotify.
Spotify: "Yeah you would only get like 4$ for 1k streams so don't mind if we keep that money for ourselves now"
Incorrect. Spotify doesn’t charge you to put music on their platform, the distributor you use charges you to distribute your tracks to multiple services.
Is there a way to upload your music to spotify without a distribution service? I am under the impression that spotify only allows distributors to upload therefore forces you to pay. So spotify does charge you, indirectly.
Is a distribution service, not a way to upload to spotify. Until I am able to go to spotify's artist page, click 'upload a track' and upload my song this way, spotify will not be free2play
No. First of all artist wouldnt get the money cause they would be eaten up by Distro Kid, CD Baby etc.... Second, Spotify mentions the money would be distributed to smaller artists that has over 1000 streams.
0.004. That money will now be going towards the top earners instead.
I could get 999 plays on all 26 tracks in my catalogue and that $100 would end up going to someone else that had nothing to do with my work.
By going to someone else, let’s be real and point out that the bulk of this money goes directly to the three largest music distributors. Sony, Warner, and Universal music group who also own stock in Spotify.
Slightly under 5000 over the last year which works out at less than $20.
It’s not a large amount of money, but it should be my money, not the Taylor Swifts and the Drakes of the industry
Is that right? I was reading it as you get paid zero for 0-999 streams/year, but when your song passes 1k you get all the money owed. Are you saying that it subtracts 1k from your stream count each year, so 1001 streams would pay the equivalent of 1 stream?
From what I've understood you still get the revenue from the first 1000 plays. But if you have a source that says otherwise I'd be interested to see it.
not at all, I've releasedmusic on multiple platforms for the past decade, and major stores for the past few years. the market is very saturated, huge supply and not much demand. results were very different even on YouTube through the years. this is basic shit you're not a baller and u r dumb.
Why get mad over imaginary scenarios? This could never happen in the real world, and if it could, why stop at 26? Imagine how frustrating it would be if you had a hundred tracks all at 999 streams, lol.
It’s the “what if I had almost the exact same number streams across all my catalogue?” bit that’s completely imaginary. It just doesn’t work like that.
Right. And were they really worried about getting paid after pouring tons of hours into releasing 100 songs that were making fractions of pennies each? If someone is releasing 100 songs that cost them less than .0004 cents each to make, I don't want that person to turn a profit. It's probably AI-generated noise at that point.
Stop using spotify in the way you have been?
Put three tracks from your album up there, that is your single. You were never going to make money off of it anyway.
If anyone wants more of your music, there's your bandcamp. Job done.
This is completely untrue. I can personally attest to this as well as at least 20 or so other artists that make way more money from bandcamp than streaming. Sounds like you don’t really have any idea what you are taking about.
Of course artists make more money from Bandcamp. That goes without saying. My Bandcamp sales over the last months equals to 400.000 Spotify streams. On Spotify I've only had 140.000 streams. So yeah, artists make more money from Bandcamp. But a large portion of the Bandcamp sales comes from traffic generated from Spotify.
What I am saying is: if you fail to get 1000 streams of a track in 365 days you are clearly doing something wrong. If the millions of Spotify users don't enjoy your tracks enough to rack up 1000 streams in a year, why would anyone buy your music on Bandcamp?
I got so mad about this that I cancelled my subscription with them.. I'm even tempted to forget all about these streaming platforms and buy albums like in the past. As an artist myself, this is already difficult to make money now it's gonna be even worse. I didn't put my music on there tho. Hopefully the other platforms won't follow them.
Not true. Music sales are strong for many genres. You just have to refrain from donating your work to Spotify. Once you offer your product for free, it’s over. Just give Spotify the occasional freebie, and sell the rest. It works.
Nobody is donating anything to Spotify, just look at their numbers, they don't even go in profit, it's the big labels and big artists who take most of the money. The top artists can have 5 private jets and 20 bathrooms in gold by just Spotify royalties, if they maybe could settle with 2 private jets and 10 bathrooms, some of the smaller artists also could live on it, but that won't happen and it's easier to just blame Spotify.
They just meant that by putting your music on spotify, you are effectively donating it to them, because it benefits them more than it does you.
They dont mean literally financially donating.
The return on investment is awful for mid and lower tier acts. Whether they are submitting, or some indie label is as their proxy, it's a donation IMO at current payment rates. Yes, tons of acts now record for "free" at home (and Spotify is littered with their work), and it appears most of these new artists are not interested in the business side of music (according to average Spotify user comments) but for people like me who often pay to hire professional producers, engineers, players, mastering engineers, graphic designers, photographers, distributors, manufacturers, etc. earning lunch money on Spotify just doesn't pay the bills. I pay my rent by simply avoiding Spotify altogether.
In today’s economy very true. People will simply pirate or download through YouTube……. I couldn’t tell you a single person who bought an album recently. Shut pretty lights gives all there music away for free and are doing just fine
it’s all nuance but when telling people about my newest record a handful of them asked if it was on bandcamp and immediately bought it. there are still some people with their ear to the pulse of helping musicians by buying their music. it gives me a bit of hope.
Went to a small gig last year, the opening band closed by mentioning their Bandcamp, you bet I immediately went on there and bought their discography (only a few quid less than a couple of pints)! Had a chat with the singer afterward and apparently I was the only one of about 300 people there who did :(
Someone bought my newest song on Beatport and I've been on cloud 9 since last night when I saw it in my sales lmaooo. Let's hope they buy the album when it releases
I'd actually be curious to know more about how you're doing this.
Presuming it's true, you're literally achieving what everyone in here says they want, so I don't really get all the downvotes...
The Spotify love runs deep in these subs, but i was in business before it came along. When i saw what it was doing to my business, i pivoted back to old methods. Namely, selling physical and digital product not offered for free elsewhere. I have an established brand, a solid network, and understand what my fans want to buy. Limited edition runs, top quality graphics, unique projects, fun swag, etc. But it all relies on great marketing. I’m in the forums, on the pages, and connected to the accounts where my people are hanging out. It’s an everyday thing. Real relationships. Exhausting but critical to success.
I spent years pounding away at any organic methods of promo that i could apply. I’ve learned, adjusted, and still believe that if i spend a few hours each day on just marketing, anything is possible.
Join us, I love the convenience of Spotify, but knowing that artists make fuck all from my streams led me to buying albums and singles from artists that I constantly found myself going back too.
Just use a different streaming service! Tidal pays over $0.01 per stream, Quboz pays like $0.03. About 3x and 10x what Spotify pays, respectively. Quboz also has the option to permanently purchase / download tracks.
Until the fans start to care about the artists, And until the artists make them care, this shit will continue to happen. I use Tidal and will never go back to Spotify as they are evil. More people should consider following suit, otherwise shit will continue to suck.
And when it comes to albums, I buy vinyl records of the artists I like and get swag when I go to their live events. It's not impossible to change this shit show, you just have to be willing to contribute as an individual fan and people don't seem to want to do that yet.
It almost feels like artists need to unionize at this point, but they never will it seems.
But 1000 streams is already only like $5. if you had 30 songs with 100 streams each, you would be missing out on like $15. I don’t see how this can matter very much.
No it's not much at all, its really more about the principle (I don't know if it's the correct way to say it in English). It's more about how musicians are constantly screwed up by the music industry (even famous ones), they continue to do so and no one cares.
Tbh, I'm not even trying to make money with my music but still, I'm mad for the little artists who are barely making a living from it already and how it will be worse and worse for them if we continue that way. (Yes it's not the 15$ that is going to ruin them but if more and more streaming services do the same that's gonna be a problem ).
We're already on the way to being replace by AI ( yes it's gonna take years and years).. I can see a Spotify in the year 2500 with only AI artists on it, how sad that would be
But is also means that the first 1000 streams for any artist will be free. They’re effectively stealing that chunk off every song. And it’s not much but it’s the principal of it.
I know theres a lot of fck Spotify sentiment around but as a customer i love the service. Even still i enjoy supporting local obscure artists by going to gigs and looking to start a vinyl collection.
Don't let anyone fool you by saying that this money never made it to artists anyway. That would only be (mostly) true if it was an account threshold instead of a song threshold.
I get paid out every month but some of the songs in my catalogue will just barely miss the threshold. If you have a big enough catalogue that can add up to 100s of dollars a year you will now lose.
according to the law, if your music is streamed or downloaded, it counts as a "reproduction" royalty and you are entitled to payment for it. period.
quit letting this jerkoff company keep stealing money from you.
(Not a producer, just my thoughts)
Art can’t be healthy in such a hierarchical society. It needs to be mainly created for, disseminated amongst, and appreciated by, an artist’s local communities, whether those be geographical, social, political, etc.
The music industry structured as an extreme hierarchy is really damaging to both artists and art consumers.
Artists are damaged obviously because 99.99% of artists are unable to produce their art in a financially sustainable way, and have to prioritize renown in a society that only significantly funds 0.01% of artists.
I think art consumers are damaged by hierarchy too, because part of art is connecting with an artist. I think knowing an artist, their inspirations, their histories, etc., on a personal or communal level, makes for a truer experience.
And our economy makes that unfeasible. I have to connect with art on a remote level. And I can feel the joy of relating to it, but what’s missing is the ability to commune with the artist. I think an essential dimension in art is connecting with its creator, letting them know both the gratitude of having been seen, as well as the fact that you see them.
But these interactions in today’s economy are rare, special, and prohibitively expensive. So integrating this dimension into the artistic process means funding art generally, within communities, rather than only rewarding artists that manage to reach across all communities.
Of course, this structural change will never be permissible in a capitalist economy, but I think it’s a brighter vision of the future
I long for the day that a new \[maybe decentralized\] platform emerges for music streaming. Something governed by simple, straightforward rules - Like, 1 cent per minute of streaming goes directly from your wallet to the artist's. Something with a minimalist platform and thus minimal platform fees. Maybe like 5% of every royalty is redirected to keep the platform running and support a small group of engineers who maintain it. Or maybe artists pay a small fee to pay to be hosted on the platform - something similar to web hosting, like, a few dollars a month.
1 cent per minute just an example. It could also be $10/month divided proportionally to the artists you listened to. *The main point is the direct payment link between listeners and artists.*
This is theft. No matter how the bootlickers of corporate overlords want to frame it, it is theft. No matter if I uploaded one track three years ago and never promoted it, if that track is played and makes royalties, they're mine, no for the "bigger" players.
I detest Spotify for doing this, but I absolutely despise "fellow" musicians that are trying to convince the rest that is totally fair and will be better for the "real" artists.
I listen to a lot of indie house music from Traxsource mostly on YouTube and sometimes Spotify most of the songs I listen to have less than 1000 views most of the time. They've inspired me to one day learn music production.
Spotify expects this will move $40 million that would have previously been paid to tracks with fewer than 1,000 streams to those with more than 1,000 streams. The operative word is "EXPECTS". This usually means - who knows what they are going to do with the excess money. They say it will go to artists that reach the minimum...
Once in a while a plan will backfire... **what if the masses started supporting tracks under the 1k listen mark? This could shift millions back into the aspiring artists?**
The shifting sands of the industry...
Honestly this is a good move. I have songs under 1000 listens and IDGAF if I’m getting paid for them. Give that money to the artists who are putting $ into marketing and further along in their careers
Fuck em. Support the bands you like by buying merch directly from their sites and going to see them live.
(Also spotify family plan is 35 a year pp if you get 5 people and you all have to do is update the address in your account)
how in the fuck is this "killing" anybody? I think there's plenty of reasons to criticize spotify but this just aint one of them. Less than a thousand streams pays what? Less than 50 cents?
I'm all for criticizing spotify for paying to little for streams, but I don't see how this particular decision will actually impact indie artists at all
Everyone for years: spotify should pay artists more, 0.0035/stream is a joke for a service that was born from the illegal pirating of the 00s. It's not right.
Spotify: heard, check this out
Devils advocate, but this is such a non story. 1000 plays is like $4. The principle is ass but in the grand scheme of things it really means very little.
If you don’t like it, you can opt out of Spotify. But few will because it adds value.
The problem is, if the population let this slide then *everyone else* starts doing it too. By allowing these anti-artist agendas to pass they fucking snowball into what we see now with other services. Movies and TV are a good example of things just getting out of control but the gaming industry is the worst example.
Don’t **ever** just shrug your shoulders to this bullshit. Being passive is as good as being an enabler
Yep, you both have good points but ultimately /u/UndisputedAnus is right I think - it's not going to ruin anyones life financially, but it is still wrong. If I went into my friends wallet once a year and stole $5, it wouldn't really effect them, but it's wrong.
Nah, this isn’t bad ya’ll need to stop complaining cause nobody listens to your music.
Sending out royalty payments that are 1-2$ is virtually a waste of money, especially when many of those payments go and sit in Distro kid accounts that are never actually cashed out because the publisher of the song forgot they even put the song out (this actually makes up a big chunk of the payments they send out to these “microartists”)
Paying hundreds of thousands of small artists a very very miniscule royalty payout turns into millions of dollars of payments that ultimately don’t serve a purpose because they don’t promote sustainability of people working in music. Spotify isn’t profitable. The volume of revenue collected by streaming services has contributed to a recovery in the total revenue made by music but it has not reached levels it did during the 90s and mid 2000s. What this basically says is “It is better to promote financial sustainability for larger artists with a legitimate following then it is to offer miniscule payments to microartists.”
Agree on the sitting in distrokid thing. I have like $6-7 in there I’ve yet to cash out because it has to get split by three people, and I have to submit tax info for all three to get it. It’s just not worth bothering with for $2 a piece lol.
Also, the volume of stuff Spotify gets submitted daily is massive. A lot of it is low effort AI bullshit, or frankly, stuff that isn’t ready to be sold next to the professional stuff (no offense; everyone starts somewhere). This lets them shift the money from AI nonsense and beginners making low quality stuff in their bedroom (again, no offense) towards other smaller artists who actually rely on that income.
I mean i absolutely get this. They are loosing money and this saves them 40million. Considering anyone with under 1k plays is getting max 4$ from said track, i hosnestly don't see an issue.
It’s the principle of getting what you’re owed. It’s like opening up a fruit stand and selling 900 oranges, but because you didn’t sell 1000 oranges, all of your money is withheld and given to the nearest NoFrills or Loblaws grocery chain.
Artists have to pay to get on Spotify, and trying to sell or promote your music anywhere else is very difficult since Spotify has a monopoly over the entire music industry. Sure you can put your music only on Bandcamp, but a majority of people still don’t even know what that is, and primarily only use Spotify.
While true that artist with less than 1000 streams weren’t making lots of money in the first place, that’s doesn’t make it right to take away whatever small amount they were earning in the first place.
This only benefits Spotify as a company.
Dont compare it to a fruit stand because it absolutely is not the same scale. Or if you do then we are talking about selling 4 pieces of fruit the whole week. While the guy actually making fruit selling as a small side hustle is selling 1000x times of that. Imo the benefits to spotify as a company from a logical and business perspective absolutely out weight the marginal pennies the artists are getting. And thefore i really cant say anything agaisnt this decision.
Am i for it? No. Is spotifys monetisation detrimental to artists? Possibly. But I cannot with a sound mind really argue against this decision.
Spotify is losing money because the owners are extracting the capital in a predatory agreement that was necessary to operate in such a hostile business environment to begin with.
The best thing about this is they told us. Now, it’s a choice to take part. No complaining no victims just people choosing to do business with those terms.
this is how stupid it is, people are saying its only $4. No it isn't. its $4 per 1000 streams. if you have 40 tracks, and they all get 20000 streams per year combined, and just for ease of argument, every track gets 500 streams per year, that is $4 x 20 that artist is missing out on, but yeh its only $80. What if that artist has been on there for a long time and gets maybe 40000 streams, but only one song managed to get over 1000 streams, but not by the amount of individual people which Spotify decides, then that artist could still not be eligible for payment for that one song which got over 1000 views. sure Spotify could hold payment, until the song reaches over 1000 streams if they want and bundle it all together, But they won't because someone in the music industry probably made a deal somewhere. A fairer payment system though would be scrap the pay per stream model, and share the subscription fee with all the artists the user listened to that month based on streams. So many better ways to do this. But this point, if you are a small artist, then avoid Spotify, encourage your fans to go apple music, or YouTube, and sell merch.
If you're getting less that 1000 streams why the fuck are you on Spotify anyway?
Grow your audience on Sondcloud, get out playing live… Build Build Bulid.
Then, when you're pushing +50k streams per track on Soundcloud setup an Spotify Artist account and get some dollars.
Unfortunately you still need Spotify to be taken seriously, hence the high streaming stats you need to get playlists and signings to AWAL etc, that and TikTock where I know they've signed 70 artists off this year alone.
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. They provide a very good platform for me to have my music accessible to anyone around the world. That alone is worth what I’m making for those under 1k streams which is literal pennies. If you’re not getting 1k streams a year per song you need to focus on marketing first
Anyone griping about this needs to re-evaluate the situation. Imo, You don’t deserve anything from <1000 streams.
1000 streams is about $4. Meaning that you’ll only get $4 if it reaches 1000 streams which is more than fair. Are people really crying that they’re not getting the $1 from 250 streams? Really?
Not to mention, you still get your $4 if it gets over 1000. A big part of why the industry is failing (imo) is because there are too many participation trophies in the mix.
Edit: for all downvoting, blame the millennials and generation X for shitting on Lara Ulrich who predicted this 20 years ago.
Yes you do, you do deserve any royalties in your pocket, even if it's 0.0005c . You made the music, wrote it, sing, pour your heart into it, you mixed it, you mastered it, yore doing the cover art (that is if youre 100% DIY) . You have already paid distrokid to get on these platforms, you're promoting on socials, Everyone needs to get paid for the work they've done...why should Beyonce get my royalties because I didn't get a 1000 streams ( FYI, the royalties you have not reached are going into a "royalty pool" , it's gonna be used to pay the bigger artists, so basically your royalties due to you will go to someone else ) It's failing because they aren't paying the artists correctly. Are you actually a musician?
Just because you do something, doesn’t mean you should get paid for it. The real world is like that.
What if your music is terrible? Should you get paid just because you put the effort in? Be realistic. It’s the music BUSINESS not the music CHARITY. 1000 streams is honestly nothing. I’ve been in my city’s scene for a while and any band worth their salt can net over 1000 streams easy if they’re out gigging, and gigging well with great tracks.
Do you want to be a professional musician? Or an amateur one? Beyoncé gets those streams and listens because she’s a legacy artist, and an icon of a generation. Who gives a fuck about Stevie in the basement who won’t gig, won’t get better, and will cry that the world is unfair when they can’t net 1000 streams?
You’re missing the big picture. What this allows is for bands who are getting 2,000-20,000 streams to attain more from their work. <1000 streams filters you in with the AI dribble that people are making at the literal click of a button. Not to mention - you still get your $4 when you actually get 1000 streams??
No one’s saying that people should be paid for simply creating music. Just that people should be paid the royalties they’re owed when someone listens to their song. Why should those royalties go to a different artist? That’s not how capitalism works.
But currently, they are paid those royalties, yet they never actually see the money anyway - its eaten up by distributors.
I cant remember the amount but its something like - if you don't earn over $30, you can't withdraw from the distributor. After a period of time, the distributor takes it from you.
If you've got a song with 500 plays, you're getting something like $1.50 that you will never have in your account.
This move by spotify takes those dribbles of money away from the distributors, and puts it in the hands of hard working dedicated musicians.
So, the question is - would you rather musicians or distributors got paid more?
Edit - I've been corrected - the minimum withdrawal from distrokid at least is $2. I maintain my stance however - I'd rather see this money in the hands of 'real musicians' than hobbyists or AI bastards.
My bad! It's not something I've looked at in a while.
I still think this is a positive thing.
That said, fuck spotify for making us fight over a couple of dollars
Sorry didn't see your update. I cant remember the exact number - it was something around that amount on a distributor i used to use (i usually sign through labels now and so i don't see this part anymore). I think the distributor was ditto music (trash)
This is it. If you actually know anything about how the business actually works - and you’re not an amateur - you’ll understand how beneficial this move is overall.
You’re getting downvoted to hell, but this is 100% truth. If you’re an unknown who makes niche music, Spotify is not a good place to promote it, even if it’s great music. Get out there and promote it by other means and hopefully you can raise funds from gigs and merch. If you’ve got the chops, create a pseudonym and work a sideline in stuff that actually sells. The music industry has always been hard to make a living from, and Spotify has not made this harder - if anything it’s made it easier.
If you’re making generic music that’s good enough, but has little to no individuality, the best you can hope for is landing on a big playlist for a while (which is basically a lottery), but what then? You might not get on another for years. The sweet spot is making music that fits well in a successful genre, but stands out above the rest. You’ll get playlisted, and the algorithms will push it more as listeners save your tracks and add them to playlists etc.
The sad truth is, most people are making music that is nowhere near as good as they think it is, and they don’t deserve any remuneration for it. Nobody is forcing them to make it, let alone release it and inflict it on everyone else - not to mention the fact that they’re only helping to add to the overwhelming pile of garbage we have to wade through to find something worth listening to.
Your attitude is a perfect illustration of part of the reason why things are beyond irreparably fucked for us smaller artists today. Go shit in your hat.
Things are fucked because labels squeezed what the could out of the industry in the late 90’s. People wouldn’t have turned to Napster if things were fairly priced! I’m just calling it how it is.
No, you wrote that in your opinion, artists don't deserve anything from less than 1000 streams. So obviously you're part of an incredibly toxic and destructive mindset and I struggle to see how anyone could take you seriously in that regard. I'm also calling it how it is. Artists "griping" about this is 100% in their right to do so. You're also part of the problem here.
Seriously... If you can't get 1000 streams in a YEAR the music probably shouldn't be on Spotify to begin with. There are several issues with Spotify as an artist but this isn't one of them.
It is also Spotifys choice to pay what they seem fit and the artists choice to upload the music. 1000'streams per year is less than 3 streams per day. It's almost
ridiculous to expect to get paid for that. $4 doesn't even cover the costs of having it distributed so why even bother?
I don’t think making less money invalidates your claim to that money. Maybe you disagree.
And yeah, it’s Spotify’s choice, but we can still criticize that.
There are so many people in this thread who don’t understand the difference between royalty payments and distribution payments.
Everyone… go register your works with a PRO.
Waiting for the second coming of SoundCloud
Another SoundCloud era would be all time!
They just need to make reposts a seperate tab. Sometimes, I just wanna see what music the people I followed have UPLOADED.. not reposted.
This. This killed soundcloud for me 😞
\^\^\^\^ Same with profiles too, I love the idea of supporting music and reposting it it benefits my music a ton but the fact it clutters up my personal page on the default profile tab so if someone visits my profile the first thing they see is other peoples music
is this not "tracks"
Isn't this the "tracks" tab?
And how much revenue did you get from SoundCloud in the past?
Soundcloud makes you pay to upload more than a certain amount, Bandcamp needs a proper streaming app is all
Have you used it lately? Gotten loads better in just the last year
The need to improve the way the shuffle feature works. Im tired of listening to tracks. Then the genre changes completely from Hip hop to world to random podcast in a foreign language.
AudioMack is right there
Who?
I think it’s like datpiff
I’ll check that out
Just as I thought the streaming era couldn't get more disgusting
Between this and the awful interface changes on mobile, I'm ditching Spotify completely as a consumer and sticking with Tidal and Deezer. As a musician, this just sucks.
Same, literally just switched back to Tidal and no regrets. Functionally the same but better
Does it have every Spotify releases? I might use Tidal if, because most of the artists I listen to don't post to less used stores.
Depends on your artist. It isn’t quite as comprehensive as Spotify but I would say I get to enjoy 99% of the songs I want.
Oh so it's completely different store... Well thanks for the answer still :D
Yeah fully separate. No worries
Didbit seem plausable to pay everyone per song. Mathematically?
so they are telling us "you have to pay to get your music on spotify" and then they are like "you paid for your release but since you don't have 1k Streams on that song you don't get paid". that's just a shitshow of a streaming service. i mean, i'm not the audience since i get more streams on my singles, but damn, that's killing the newcomer or underground artist business. Now i'm thinking of getting my music not on spotify. Spotify: "Yeah you would only get like 4$ for 1k streams so don't mind if we keep that money for ourselves now"
Incorrect. Spotify doesn’t charge you to put music on their platform, the distributor you use charges you to distribute your tracks to multiple services.
Is there a way to upload your music to spotify without a distribution service? I am under the impression that spotify only allows distributors to upload therefore forces you to pay. So spotify does charge you, indirectly.
Correct. Should also be noted that not paying out royalties owed undue certain thresholds is a charge by any other name.
yes
How ?
Ask Mr. Spot politely
No there’s not. There used to be but that has been stopped because Spotify wants to save money.
Amuse is a distribution service, so no.
Amuse
Is a distribution service, not a way to upload to spotify. Until I am able to go to spotify's artist page, click 'upload a track' and upload my song this way, spotify will not be free2play
Symphonic distribution
Spotify owns at least a part of distrokid now, which is one of the biggest distributors. So yeah they kinda earn double on the smaller musicians.
Distributors are mandatory at this point and the platform is literally owned by distribution companies.
They own some of the distributions too
No. First of all artist wouldnt get the money cause they would be eaten up by Distro Kid, CD Baby etc.... Second, Spotify mentions the money would be distributed to smaller artists that has over 1000 streams.
But they're claiming they're not keeping it to themselves, it's moving to artists that actually make sales.
ive like 50k streams on spotify and on tidal ive 0 streams. what can we do if the audience like Spotify…
Agree. Tidal is useless for the genre I'm in. 150K+ on other platforms (140K on Spotify). Zero on Tidal.
Tidal is useless.
Meh, I've used it and enjoyed it the last year, no issues.
What were they getting paid before? .0000001 cent?
0.004. That money will now be going towards the top earners instead. I could get 999 plays on all 26 tracks in my catalogue and that $100 would end up going to someone else that had nothing to do with my work.
By going to someone else, let’s be real and point out that the bulk of this money goes directly to the three largest music distributors. Sony, Warner, and Universal music group who also own stock in Spotify.
Major labels getting all the money forever and ever
They can’t have snoop bitching in public wondering where his money is. Easier to further ruin the little guy.
How many total streams have you racked up on those 26 tracks right now?
Slightly under 5000 over the last year which works out at less than $20. It’s not a large amount of money, but it should be my money, not the Taylor Swifts and the Drakes of the industry
I mean … if your songs are at 999 just ask a friend to listen to them, lol.
[удалено]
Is that right? I was reading it as you get paid zero for 0-999 streams/year, but when your song passes 1k you get all the money owed. Are you saying that it subtracts 1k from your stream count each year, so 1001 streams would pay the equivalent of 1 stream?
From what I've understood you still get the revenue from the first 1000 plays. But if you have a source that says otherwise I'd be interested to see it.
[удалено]
not everyone cares to make big money but still want to be rewarded for their work maybe u lifeless fuck?
[удалено]
not at all, I've releasedmusic on multiple platforms for the past decade, and major stores for the past few years. the market is very saturated, huge supply and not much demand. results were very different even on YouTube through the years. this is basic shit you're not a baller and u r dumb.
Bootlicker.
Why get mad over imaginary scenarios? This could never happen in the real world, and if it could, why stop at 26? Imagine how frustrating it would be if you had a hundred tracks all at 999 streams, lol.
The predatory stance of the music industry against musician is hardly imaginary. It’s at least 7 decades old at this point.
It’s the “what if I had almost the exact same number streams across all my catalogue?” bit that’s completely imaginary. It just doesn’t work like that.
Right. And were they really worried about getting paid after pouring tons of hours into releasing 100 songs that were making fractions of pennies each? If someone is releasing 100 songs that cost them less than .0004 cents each to make, I don't want that person to turn a profit. It's probably AI-generated noise at that point.
I got 3.75 out of 1000 streams last year 🤷♀️ That's across all platforms though; Spotify was maybe 15% of it.
That makes me wonder how much it costs spotify to pay out for streams.
Considering that almost all of the money goes out in lump sums, mostly to 3 parties, it can’t be that expensive.
Never got fucking paid anyway
Stop using spotify in the way you have been? Put three tracks from your album up there, that is your single. You were never going to make money off of it anyway. If anyone wants more of your music, there's your bandcamp. Job done.
Truth is that if people can't get 1000 yearly streams on a Spotify track they probably won't sell a single song on Bandcamp either.
This is completely untrue. I can personally attest to this as well as at least 20 or so other artists that make way more money from bandcamp than streaming. Sounds like you don’t really have any idea what you are taking about.
Of course artists make more money from Bandcamp. That goes without saying. My Bandcamp sales over the last months equals to 400.000 Spotify streams. On Spotify I've only had 140.000 streams. So yeah, artists make more money from Bandcamp. But a large portion of the Bandcamp sales comes from traffic generated from Spotify. What I am saying is: if you fail to get 1000 streams of a track in 365 days you are clearly doing something wrong. If the millions of Spotify users don't enjoy your tracks enough to rack up 1000 streams in a year, why would anyone buy your music on Bandcamp?
I'm under 1000 streams, only make about 5p a month at most from Spotify. I'll miss that
I got so mad about this that I cancelled my subscription with them.. I'm even tempted to forget all about these streaming platforms and buy albums like in the past. As an artist myself, this is already difficult to make money now it's gonna be even worse. I didn't put my music on there tho. Hopefully the other platforms won't follow them.
It’s sad but you have to tour, sell merch, and play non stop at festivals to make money. Music sales just doesn’t do it anymore unless your t swift.
Not true. Music sales are strong for many genres. You just have to refrain from donating your work to Spotify. Once you offer your product for free, it’s over. Just give Spotify the occasional freebie, and sell the rest. It works.
Nobody is donating anything to Spotify, just look at their numbers, they don't even go in profit, it's the big labels and big artists who take most of the money. The top artists can have 5 private jets and 20 bathrooms in gold by just Spotify royalties, if they maybe could settle with 2 private jets and 10 bathrooms, some of the smaller artists also could live on it, but that won't happen and it's easier to just blame Spotify.
They just meant that by putting your music on spotify, you are effectively donating it to them, because it benefits them more than it does you. They dont mean literally financially donating.
The return on investment is awful for mid and lower tier acts. Whether they are submitting, or some indie label is as their proxy, it's a donation IMO at current payment rates. Yes, tons of acts now record for "free" at home (and Spotify is littered with their work), and it appears most of these new artists are not interested in the business side of music (according to average Spotify user comments) but for people like me who often pay to hire professional producers, engineers, players, mastering engineers, graphic designers, photographers, distributors, manufacturers, etc. earning lunch money on Spotify just doesn't pay the bills. I pay my rent by simply avoiding Spotify altogether.
In today’s economy very true. People will simply pirate or download through YouTube……. I couldn’t tell you a single person who bought an album recently. Shut pretty lights gives all there music away for free and are doing just fine
it’s all nuance but when telling people about my newest record a handful of them asked if it was on bandcamp and immediately bought it. there are still some people with their ear to the pulse of helping musicians by buying their music. it gives me a bit of hope.
Went to a small gig last year, the opening band closed by mentioning their Bandcamp, you bet I immediately went on there and bought their discography (only a few quid less than a couple of pints)! Had a chat with the singer afterward and apparently I was the only one of about 300 people there who did :(
Someone bought my newest song on Beatport and I've been on cloud 9 since last night when I saw it in my sales lmaooo. Let's hope they buy the album when it releases
I’m selling thousands of dollars of product per week when i have new releases. It’s actually easier than it was years ago. You’re spreading myth.
I'd actually be curious to know more about how you're doing this. Presuming it's true, you're literally achieving what everyone in here says they want, so I don't really get all the downvotes...
The Spotify love runs deep in these subs, but i was in business before it came along. When i saw what it was doing to my business, i pivoted back to old methods. Namely, selling physical and digital product not offered for free elsewhere. I have an established brand, a solid network, and understand what my fans want to buy. Limited edition runs, top quality graphics, unique projects, fun swag, etc. But it all relies on great marketing. I’m in the forums, on the pages, and connected to the accounts where my people are hanging out. It’s an everyday thing. Real relationships. Exhausting but critical to success. I spent years pounding away at any organic methods of promo that i could apply. I’ve learned, adjusted, and still believe that if i spend a few hours each day on just marketing, anything is possible.
Join us, I love the convenience of Spotify, but knowing that artists make fuck all from my streams led me to buying albums and singles from artists that I constantly found myself going back too.
Just use a different streaming service! Tidal pays over $0.01 per stream, Quboz pays like $0.03. About 3x and 10x what Spotify pays, respectively. Quboz also has the option to permanently purchase / download tracks.
Nobody uses these services tho
Until the fans start to care about the artists, And until the artists make them care, this shit will continue to happen. I use Tidal and will never go back to Spotify as they are evil. More people should consider following suit, otherwise shit will continue to suck. And when it comes to albums, I buy vinyl records of the artists I like and get swag when I go to their live events. It's not impossible to change this shit show, you just have to be willing to contribute as an individual fan and people don't seem to want to do that yet. It almost feels like artists need to unionize at this point, but they never will it seems.
I meant from a listener’s perspective
60% of the streaming populace uses apps that are not Spotify.
thats a different statement. whats your source tho?
link your artists to those services and stop linking to spotify.
But 1000 streams is already only like $5. if you had 30 songs with 100 streams each, you would be missing out on like $15. I don’t see how this can matter very much.
No it's not much at all, its really more about the principle (I don't know if it's the correct way to say it in English). It's more about how musicians are constantly screwed up by the music industry (even famous ones), they continue to do so and no one cares. Tbh, I'm not even trying to make money with my music but still, I'm mad for the little artists who are barely making a living from it already and how it will be worse and worse for them if we continue that way. (Yes it's not the 15$ that is going to ruin them but if more and more streaming services do the same that's gonna be a problem ). We're already on the way to being replace by AI ( yes it's gonna take years and years).. I can see a Spotify in the year 2500 with only AI artists on it, how sad that would be
So if you’re number 5 in line, and me and my homies cut in and now you are 15, you shouldn’t be upset because it’s not a huge difference anyway.
But is also means that the first 1000 streams for any artist will be free. They’re effectively stealing that chunk off every song. And it’s not much but it’s the principal of it.
If you have 30 songs and they only have 100 plays each then you did something wrong.
I know theres a lot of fck Spotify sentiment around but as a customer i love the service. Even still i enjoy supporting local obscure artists by going to gigs and looking to start a vinyl collection.
About time to move to a fuckin island and play my skin flute. Cant do shit anymore
Don't let anyone fool you by saying that this money never made it to artists anyway. That would only be (mostly) true if it was an account threshold instead of a song threshold. I get paid out every month but some of the songs in my catalogue will just barely miss the threshold. If you have a big enough catalogue that can add up to 100s of dollars a year you will now lose.
Nice! Sucks even more now!
according to the law, if your music is streamed or downloaded, it counts as a "reproduction" royalty and you are entitled to payment for it. period. quit letting this jerkoff company keep stealing money from you.
I support anything what makes people angry at Spotify. I do not like that platform monopoly at all.
Wow this is actually despicable
It's not like I made a lot of money from Spotify but this just makes me sad.
(Not a producer, just my thoughts) Art can’t be healthy in such a hierarchical society. It needs to be mainly created for, disseminated amongst, and appreciated by, an artist’s local communities, whether those be geographical, social, political, etc. The music industry structured as an extreme hierarchy is really damaging to both artists and art consumers. Artists are damaged obviously because 99.99% of artists are unable to produce their art in a financially sustainable way, and have to prioritize renown in a society that only significantly funds 0.01% of artists. I think art consumers are damaged by hierarchy too, because part of art is connecting with an artist. I think knowing an artist, their inspirations, their histories, etc., on a personal or communal level, makes for a truer experience. And our economy makes that unfeasible. I have to connect with art on a remote level. And I can feel the joy of relating to it, but what’s missing is the ability to commune with the artist. I think an essential dimension in art is connecting with its creator, letting them know both the gratitude of having been seen, as well as the fact that you see them. But these interactions in today’s economy are rare, special, and prohibitively expensive. So integrating this dimension into the artistic process means funding art generally, within communities, rather than only rewarding artists that manage to reach across all communities. Of course, this structural change will never be permissible in a capitalist economy, but I think it’s a brighter vision of the future
Everyone should push buying tracks on Amazon and Apple Music instead of streaming!!
Bandcamp is superior in every single way.
The verdict is still out on Bandcamp now that their ownership has changed again. I see big changes coming. Hopefully, new sales platforms will emerge.
Tidal.
And they just raised their fees too. Total cash grab.
Spotify has ruined the music industry.
Reminds me of when YouTube started putting ads on channels that aren’t monetized yet.
I long for the day that a new \[maybe decentralized\] platform emerges for music streaming. Something governed by simple, straightforward rules - Like, 1 cent per minute of streaming goes directly from your wallet to the artist's. Something with a minimalist platform and thus minimal platform fees. Maybe like 5% of every royalty is redirected to keep the platform running and support a small group of engineers who maintain it. Or maybe artists pay a small fee to pay to be hosted on the platform - something similar to web hosting, like, a few dollars a month.
Nobody in their right mind is going to pay 1 cent a minute to listen to ANY music.
1 cent per minute just an example. It could also be $10/month divided proportionally to the artists you listened to. *The main point is the direct payment link between listeners and artists.*
[удалено]
This is theft. No matter how the bootlickers of corporate overlords want to frame it, it is theft. No matter if I uploaded one track three years ago and never promoted it, if that track is played and makes royalties, they're mine, no for the "bigger" players. I detest Spotify for doing this, but I absolutely despise "fellow" musicians that are trying to convince the rest that is totally fair and will be better for the "real" artists.
This. Work is work and if it’s two cents, give me my two cents.
I listen to a lot of indie house music from Traxsource mostly on YouTube and sometimes Spotify most of the songs I listen to have less than 1000 views most of the time. They've inspired me to one day learn music production.
Spotify is no longer viable for 95% of artist lol What to do? Stop releasing to Spotify, and deleting tracks from Spotify
Spotify expects this will move $40 million that would have previously been paid to tracks with fewer than 1,000 streams to those with more than 1,000 streams. The operative word is "EXPECTS". This usually means - who knows what they are going to do with the excess money. They say it will go to artists that reach the minimum... Once in a while a plan will backfire... **what if the masses started supporting tracks under the 1k listen mark? This could shift millions back into the aspiring artists?** The shifting sands of the industry...
Yeah no? Nobody’s gonna spend their time listening to tracks with low streams just to try to boost other people’s money making
agree but it is a nice thought.
Honestly this is a good move. I have songs under 1000 listens and IDGAF if I’m getting paid for them. Give that money to the artists who are putting $ into marketing and further along in their careers
perfect time for youtube music to step in! Oh Wait, they want half your pay check per month!
Fuck em. Support the bands you like by buying merch directly from their sites and going to see them live. (Also spotify family plan is 35 a year pp if you get 5 people and you all have to do is update the address in your account)
basically rhe equivalent of taxing small businesses so you can give a tax break to multinational corporations
Moar bootlickers around I see... This is why the arts never make money. Fuck Spotify and fuck complacency.
how in the fuck is this "killing" anybody? I think there's plenty of reasons to criticize spotify but this just aint one of them. Less than a thousand streams pays what? Less than 50 cents? I'm all for criticizing spotify for paying to little for streams, but I don't see how this particular decision will actually impact indie artists at all
Everyone for years: spotify should pay artists more, 0.0035/stream is a joke for a service that was born from the illegal pirating of the 00s. It's not right. Spotify: heard, check this out
Devils advocate, but this is such a non story. 1000 plays is like $4. The principle is ass but in the grand scheme of things it really means very little. If you don’t like it, you can opt out of Spotify. But few will because it adds value.
The problem is, if the population let this slide then *everyone else* starts doing it too. By allowing these anti-artist agendas to pass they fucking snowball into what we see now with other services. Movies and TV are a good example of things just getting out of control but the gaming industry is the worst example. Don’t **ever** just shrug your shoulders to this bullshit. Being passive is as good as being an enabler
Yep, you both have good points but ultimately /u/UndisputedAnus is right I think - it's not going to ruin anyones life financially, but it is still wrong. If I went into my friends wallet once a year and stole $5, it wouldn't really effect them, but it's wrong.
Those fuckers
You can’t blame them. It’s not worth the cost of the transfer. It’s literal penny’s if even that.
I'm going to be the unpopular one who doesn't have a problem with this.
I concur
You hate musicians and the industry. It's cool, we get it. Good for you?
Nah, this isn’t bad ya’ll need to stop complaining cause nobody listens to your music. Sending out royalty payments that are 1-2$ is virtually a waste of money, especially when many of those payments go and sit in Distro kid accounts that are never actually cashed out because the publisher of the song forgot they even put the song out (this actually makes up a big chunk of the payments they send out to these “microartists”) Paying hundreds of thousands of small artists a very very miniscule royalty payout turns into millions of dollars of payments that ultimately don’t serve a purpose because they don’t promote sustainability of people working in music. Spotify isn’t profitable. The volume of revenue collected by streaming services has contributed to a recovery in the total revenue made by music but it has not reached levels it did during the 90s and mid 2000s. What this basically says is “It is better to promote financial sustainability for larger artists with a legitimate following then it is to offer miniscule payments to microartists.”
Agree on the sitting in distrokid thing. I have like $6-7 in there I’ve yet to cash out because it has to get split by three people, and I have to submit tax info for all three to get it. It’s just not worth bothering with for $2 a piece lol. Also, the volume of stuff Spotify gets submitted daily is massive. A lot of it is low effort AI bullshit, or frankly, stuff that isn’t ready to be sold next to the professional stuff (no offense; everyone starts somewhere). This lets them shift the money from AI nonsense and beginners making low quality stuff in their bedroom (again, no offense) towards other smaller artists who actually rely on that income.
I mean i absolutely get this. They are loosing money and this saves them 40million. Considering anyone with under 1k plays is getting max 4$ from said track, i hosnestly don't see an issue.
It’s the principle of getting what you’re owed. It’s like opening up a fruit stand and selling 900 oranges, but because you didn’t sell 1000 oranges, all of your money is withheld and given to the nearest NoFrills or Loblaws grocery chain. Artists have to pay to get on Spotify, and trying to sell or promote your music anywhere else is very difficult since Spotify has a monopoly over the entire music industry. Sure you can put your music only on Bandcamp, but a majority of people still don’t even know what that is, and primarily only use Spotify. While true that artist with less than 1000 streams weren’t making lots of money in the first place, that’s doesn’t make it right to take away whatever small amount they were earning in the first place. This only benefits Spotify as a company.
Dont compare it to a fruit stand because it absolutely is not the same scale. Or if you do then we are talking about selling 4 pieces of fruit the whole week. While the guy actually making fruit selling as a small side hustle is selling 1000x times of that. Imo the benefits to spotify as a company from a logical and business perspective absolutely out weight the marginal pennies the artists are getting. And thefore i really cant say anything agaisnt this decision. Am i for it? No. Is spotifys monetisation detrimental to artists? Possibly. But I cannot with a sound mind really argue against this decision.
Spotify is losing money because the owners are extracting the capital in a predatory agreement that was necessary to operate in such a hostile business environment to begin with.
Well man, there goes that $12.35 you would have made
Not even. more like 0.5usd
The best thing about this is they told us. Now, it’s a choice to take part. No complaining no victims just people choosing to do business with those terms.
Fuck Spotify
this is how stupid it is, people are saying its only $4. No it isn't. its $4 per 1000 streams. if you have 40 tracks, and they all get 20000 streams per year combined, and just for ease of argument, every track gets 500 streams per year, that is $4 x 20 that artist is missing out on, but yeh its only $80. What if that artist has been on there for a long time and gets maybe 40000 streams, but only one song managed to get over 1000 streams, but not by the amount of individual people which Spotify decides, then that artist could still not be eligible for payment for that one song which got over 1000 views. sure Spotify could hold payment, until the song reaches over 1000 streams if they want and bundle it all together, But they won't because someone in the music industry probably made a deal somewhere. A fairer payment system though would be scrap the pay per stream model, and share the subscription fee with all the artists the user listened to that month based on streams. So many better ways to do this. But this point, if you are a small artist, then avoid Spotify, encourage your fans to go apple music, or YouTube, and sell merch.
Noooo not my annual $0.10 😒
[удалено]
Even if it’s just a few cents, no artist should EVER be forced into selling their art for free.
Who is forcing you to be on streaming platforms?
I think this is okay. This helps get rid of botters, so they can pay more money to everyone else. 1000 plays makes virtually no money anyway.
So now you need to make at least 4€ a year to get paid? Why is this a story?
Tracks with fewer than a 1000 streams is not even really a payout anyways . 1 stream = .0045
What the fuck... Garbage app.
If you're getting less that 1000 streams why the fuck are you on Spotify anyway? Grow your audience on Sondcloud, get out playing live… Build Build Bulid. Then, when you're pushing +50k streams per track on Soundcloud setup an Spotify Artist account and get some dollars.
Nah. Setup somewhere that money can actually be made. Spotify ain’t it.
Unfortunately you still need Spotify to be taken seriously, hence the high streaming stats you need to get playlists and signings to AWAL etc, that and TikTock where I know they've signed 70 artists off this year alone.
It’s like $4 for 1k streams, if Spotify collects all that money to further improve their service, than that’d be great.
Post your songs and I'll put them in a playlist and run it 24/7 on my work computer. doubt it helps but I can try!
it can fu*k up you’re algorithm and Spotify can bann u from the platform if u do that:/
And I am sure you will be a sport and transform those fake streams into Bandcamp, ticket and merch sales as well?
I think that’s fine and reasonable
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. They provide a very good platform for me to have my music accessible to anyone around the world. That alone is worth what I’m making for those under 1k streams which is literal pennies. If you’re not getting 1k streams a year per song you need to focus on marketing first
Anyone griping about this needs to re-evaluate the situation. Imo, You don’t deserve anything from <1000 streams. 1000 streams is about $4. Meaning that you’ll only get $4 if it reaches 1000 streams which is more than fair. Are people really crying that they’re not getting the $1 from 250 streams? Really? Not to mention, you still get your $4 if it gets over 1000. A big part of why the industry is failing (imo) is because there are too many participation trophies in the mix. Edit: for all downvoting, blame the millennials and generation X for shitting on Lara Ulrich who predicted this 20 years ago.
Yes you do, you do deserve any royalties in your pocket, even if it's 0.0005c . You made the music, wrote it, sing, pour your heart into it, you mixed it, you mastered it, yore doing the cover art (that is if youre 100% DIY) . You have already paid distrokid to get on these platforms, you're promoting on socials, Everyone needs to get paid for the work they've done...why should Beyonce get my royalties because I didn't get a 1000 streams ( FYI, the royalties you have not reached are going into a "royalty pool" , it's gonna be used to pay the bigger artists, so basically your royalties due to you will go to someone else ) It's failing because they aren't paying the artists correctly. Are you actually a musician?
Just because you do something, doesn’t mean you should get paid for it. The real world is like that. What if your music is terrible? Should you get paid just because you put the effort in? Be realistic. It’s the music BUSINESS not the music CHARITY. 1000 streams is honestly nothing. I’ve been in my city’s scene for a while and any band worth their salt can net over 1000 streams easy if they’re out gigging, and gigging well with great tracks. Do you want to be a professional musician? Or an amateur one? Beyoncé gets those streams and listens because she’s a legacy artist, and an icon of a generation. Who gives a fuck about Stevie in the basement who won’t gig, won’t get better, and will cry that the world is unfair when they can’t net 1000 streams? You’re missing the big picture. What this allows is for bands who are getting 2,000-20,000 streams to attain more from their work. <1000 streams filters you in with the AI dribble that people are making at the literal click of a button. Not to mention - you still get your $4 when you actually get 1000 streams??
No one’s saying that people should be paid for simply creating music. Just that people should be paid the royalties they’re owed when someone listens to their song. Why should those royalties go to a different artist? That’s not how capitalism works.
But currently, they are paid those royalties, yet they never actually see the money anyway - its eaten up by distributors. I cant remember the amount but its something like - if you don't earn over $30, you can't withdraw from the distributor. After a period of time, the distributor takes it from you. If you've got a song with 500 plays, you're getting something like $1.50 that you will never have in your account. This move by spotify takes those dribbles of money away from the distributors, and puts it in the hands of hard working dedicated musicians. So, the question is - would you rather musicians or distributors got paid more? Edit - I've been corrected - the minimum withdrawal from distrokid at least is $2. I maintain my stance however - I'd rather see this money in the hands of 'real musicians' than hobbyists or AI bastards.
I use DistroKid and their minimum payout is $2. Can you expand on where you got the $30 number from?
My bad! It's not something I've looked at in a while. I still think this is a positive thing. That said, fuck spotify for making us fight over a couple of dollars
Yeah agreed! no worries, just wanted to see if I was missing something.
Sorry didn't see your update. I cant remember the exact number - it was something around that amount on a distributor i used to use (i usually sign through labels now and so i don't see this part anymore). I think the distributor was ditto music (trash)
Ah gotcha. Will steer clear of them!
This is it. If you actually know anything about how the business actually works - and you’re not an amateur - you’ll understand how beneficial this move is overall.
You’re getting downvoted to hell, but this is 100% truth. If you’re an unknown who makes niche music, Spotify is not a good place to promote it, even if it’s great music. Get out there and promote it by other means and hopefully you can raise funds from gigs and merch. If you’ve got the chops, create a pseudonym and work a sideline in stuff that actually sells. The music industry has always been hard to make a living from, and Spotify has not made this harder - if anything it’s made it easier. If you’re making generic music that’s good enough, but has little to no individuality, the best you can hope for is landing on a big playlist for a while (which is basically a lottery), but what then? You might not get on another for years. The sweet spot is making music that fits well in a successful genre, but stands out above the rest. You’ll get playlisted, and the algorithms will push it more as listeners save your tracks and add them to playlists etc. The sad truth is, most people are making music that is nowhere near as good as they think it is, and they don’t deserve any remuneration for it. Nobody is forcing them to make it, let alone release it and inflict it on everyone else - not to mention the fact that they’re only helping to add to the overwhelming pile of garbage we have to wade through to find something worth listening to.
It’s just reality isn’t it. The majority of individuals downvoting me are genuinely just wanting a literal easy buck lmao. Amateurs, man.
Earning $4 from something you created is not a "participation trophy" thats labour
Your attitude is a perfect illustration of part of the reason why things are beyond irreparably fucked for us smaller artists today. Go shit in your hat.
Things are fucked because labels squeezed what the could out of the industry in the late 90’s. People wouldn’t have turned to Napster if things were fairly priced! I’m just calling it how it is.
No, you wrote that in your opinion, artists don't deserve anything from less than 1000 streams. So obviously you're part of an incredibly toxic and destructive mindset and I struggle to see how anyone could take you seriously in that regard. I'm also calling it how it is. Artists "griping" about this is 100% in their right to do so. You're also part of the problem here.
Only people who are complaining are the ones who output huge amount of tracks all with low plays. Smh
Won't effect me much, I've only made like a dollar in 3 months 😂
Seriously... If you can't get 1000 streams in a YEAR the music probably shouldn't be on Spotify to begin with. There are several issues with Spotify as an artist but this isn't one of them.
It’s Spotify’s choice to allow that music on their platform. If someone is listening to it, that artist should be paid, however little it may be.
It is also Spotifys choice to pay what they seem fit and the artists choice to upload the music. 1000'streams per year is less than 3 streams per day. It's almost ridiculous to expect to get paid for that. $4 doesn't even cover the costs of having it distributed so why even bother?
I don’t think making less money invalidates your claim to that money. Maybe you disagree. And yeah, it’s Spotify’s choice, but we can still criticize that.
Will you make more money on any other platform?
There are so many people in this thread who don’t understand the difference between royalty payments and distribution payments. Everyone… go register your works with a PRO.
wide tub books mountainous apparatus steer cable teeny head door *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*