Why Spotify will fail...
- Thread starter norliss
- Start date
What if Spotify worked as follows:
1) Pay a lower subscription fee for access (say £5).
2) You get to listen to song for free 6 times, after that you are charged per listen (say £0.20) up to a maximum value (say £1) after which you can listen to it as much as you like for no extra cost.
3) Money raised via point 2 goes straight to the artist.
It seems complicated but it wouldn't be difficult to implement if the will was there.
Would you subscribe?
PS Benn's content is excellent, vinyl collectors should watch:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
1) Pay a lower subscription fee for access (say £5).
2) You get to listen to song for free 6 times, after that you are charged per listen (say £0.20) up to a maximum value (say £1) after which you can listen to it as much as you like for no extra cost.
3) Money raised via point 2 goes straight to the artist.
It seems complicated but it wouldn't be difficult to implement if the will was there.
Would you subscribe?
PS Benn's content is excellent, vinyl collectors should watch:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
tenpercenter
Don't ya rile 'em.....
So the music industry is not responsible for its own downfall? The greed it showed with CD’s led to the rise of piracy websites which led to the rise of Spotify….. just look at new vinyl prices.
Other streaming services pay more to the artists, that has to be the model for sustainability but I doubt that will happen without a fight.
Other streaming services pay more to the artists, that has to be the model for sustainability but I doubt that will happen without a fight.
Dave H.
Revolutionary relativist
The will isn’t there, though. In fact the opposite is true.
Relating subscription revenue more closely to payments to the artists a user actually listens to is an obvious way to make streaming financially fairer to artists.
But it’s resisted because the current model suits the big money and vested interests involved in streaming better (to the detriment of less popular/niche artists and labels).
IIRC there’s a Commons committee headed by Julian Knight allegedly looking into this stuff, but it’s been allegedly doing so for years.
The problem is that no musicians make money without touring. Even back in the day artists did not earn anything like what we imagine.
John Martyn left an estate of £80k. Only actual songwriters make any kind of bank & then they have to sell a lot.
I remember Lloyd Cole saying that it took more than 30 years for Mainstream to pay back its advance.
The plus side is that people still want to see live acts, even absolute crap like Shed Seven are playing larger Theatres. Festivals are always looking for acts.
The days of acts like Pink Floyd surviving on royalties are long gone.
John Martyn left an estate of £80k. Only actual songwriters make any kind of bank & then they have to sell a lot.
I remember Lloyd Cole saying that it took more than 30 years for Mainstream to pay back its advance.
The plus side is that people still want to see live acts, even absolute crap like Shed Seven are playing larger Theatres. Festivals are always looking for acts.
The days of acts like Pink Floyd surviving on royalties are long gone.
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
His point about the viability of Spotify seems quite compelling, However, surely one or other model of music streaming will survive as so many people now have systems at home, on the move, in cars that only, or primarily, play from these sources. I don't think that genie is going back in the bottle.
I'm not sure what an alternative model would be or how it would be any better for musicians. Streaming is a huge capitalist enterprise more interested in stakeholders than creatives. It would take a big change for a new service to get established and take listeners from the current models - and that will almost certainly be owned by a mega company like Sky who are unlikely to be any more interested in making the act of music creation viable.
It's odd that there seems to have never been a worse time to be a musician yet it seems there's more music being made than ever before.
I'm not sure what an alternative model would be or how it would be any better for musicians. Streaming is a huge capitalist enterprise more interested in stakeholders than creatives. It would take a big change for a new service to get established and take listeners from the current models - and that will almost certainly be owned by a mega company like Sky who are unlikely to be any more interested in making the act of music creation viable.
It's odd that there seems to have never been a worse time to be a musician yet it seems there's more music being made than ever before.
Tony L
Administrator
There is no denying streaming is shit for musicians below the Pink Floyd/Beyonce/Kanye level, but there is still good money in physical media. My point in posting is to try and point out streaming is just not viable, it is a corporate grift. If you want to support independent artists buy new records, cassettes, CDs, downloads etc from Bandcamp or the artist’s website etc. Artists will always get something from physical media, and from vinyl at £25-35 a pop actually quite a bit.
The upside of Spotify & other services is that artists are never really forgotten. ‘Lost’ artists like, say, Anne Briggs are being rediscovered all the time; there is a documentary about Judee Sill being released.
I do agree that we should support artists by buying physical media or downloads though. It would be hypocritical of me to say that I’m buying all that I stream though.
I do agree that we should support artists by buying physical media or downloads though. It would be hypocritical of me to say that I’m buying all that I stream though.
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
I'm sure most of us here will do exactly that, but we are a small minority in the scheme of things, even allowing for increased sales of vinyl.
Taking a slightly bleak view, and echoing the video, I think the history of music as a commercial product has always been a battle between the interests of business wanting to make easy money and the interests of artists wanting to make music, whether its managers, svengalis, label owners or, in the current climate, hedge fund managers buying catalogues. They've all been making money out of other people's passion and talent and rarely in an equitable way.
allthingsanalog
pfm Member
Totally agree. I've never subscribed to a streaming and never will. If there's an album I want but not on cd or vinyl I pay for the files and use good quality cd-r and burn it a 4x.
allthingsanalog
pfm Member
Try burning at 4x speed. On older machines 52x is very problematic.
Also cdrs from cmc Tayio Yuden are the best.
Finnegan
I like a bit of a cavort
I only have an iPad these days.
allthingsanalog
pfm Member
I can see how that could be a problem for making cd's.
wulbert
pfm Member
Grim situation. I heard a musician on the radio say; "With Spotify, I can buy a coffee, with Bandcamp I can pay my rent". That was enough for me to start using Bandcamp to buy new music I like (which isn't often I'll admit).
I also feel uneasy about the amount of energy consumed by internet streaming v just playing a file or spinning a CD locally in my home. I've actually no idea how it all works but it seems a very long and complex chain just to get music coming out my speaker.
Thing is, the family are wedded to Spotify Family. For £16/month, there's six of us using it, including my 86yr old mother who is just delighting in discovering old and new music. Is it a "bad thing" to use Spotify at all (but also support musicians) or only to use Spotify exclusively?
I also feel uneasy about the amount of energy consumed by internet streaming v just playing a file or spinning a CD locally in my home. I've actually no idea how it all works but it seems a very long and complex chain just to get music coming out my speaker.
Thing is, the family are wedded to Spotify Family. For £16/month, there's six of us using it, including my 86yr old mother who is just delighting in discovering old and new music. Is it a "bad thing" to use Spotify at all (but also support musicians) or only to use Spotify exclusively?
Tony L
Administrator
I have a YouTube subscription and Amazon Prime, which apparently has a music service, though I’ve never used it. I watch a lot of music on YouTube, but mostly as an exploratory tool when deciding what to buy. I spend way, way too much on new records, and many direct from artists or Bandcamp, so I feel no guilt about my YouTube use. I think it is just useful to point out the reality to people especially the reality facing new artists who will not make any money at all out of streaming unless they really hit mainstream success. I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over multi-millionaires like Roger Waters, Paul McCartney etc. They are fine. It is the new acts that need support. How folk choose to do that is up to them, but never assume they are even breaking even having their music on streaming services. They are likely putting it there as a loss-leader in the hope you like it enough to buy their record or go and see them play.
Theo
pfm Member
Most of my friends gave up on buying media years ago. They view my music buying habit as 'eccentric', no matter how often I point out to them that this is a key income stream for a band to survive. However, they do use streaming services to find new bands to see live. I use this opportunity to buy releases from the band direct at these small venues (higher price, but they'll normally sign them). I'm aware that I am in a minority amongst my gig going friends.
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
Ahead of his time, as always
"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left."
David Bowie, New York Times, 2002
"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left."
David Bowie, New York Times, 2002
Witterings
Witterings
It's ironic that years ago the tour was the loss leader to promote the band so people bought their records and that's how they made their money.
Now it's the reverse, the record's become the loss leader to promote the band so people go and see them live / buy their merchandise and where the profit is.
As there was more money in it for labels years ago they used to be able to finance promising bands to do 2 / 3 albums, now they're only interested in dead certainties and if the 1st album isn't a hit they get dropped like a hot potatoe.
It also means a lot of "fringe bands" ... in other words the ones that may or may not be mainstream aren't getting the support & investment in them and given the exposure / opportunity that may make a difference.
Certainly in my opinion Spotify or at least streaming will be around in 10 years as it's too convenient and as a result highly popular, especially as I have 80 million tracks availabe at my fingertips for the approximate cost of buying 1 CD a month, whether they have to change the way they do it or how they reward the artists only time will tell.
Whatever, the music industry isn't in a great way at the moment and unless there's some change I don't see it getting any better.