When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.

By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.

  • scaryjelly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    I switched from streaming back to my old ipod. Moding this old player was one of the best decisions in my career as music listner. The best thing about it is that my phone can run low on battery but i am still able to listen to chumbawamba.

    Decentrelize your hardware!

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Gotta love all my friends who are really into music who happily use Spotify and don’t give a shit it is a weapon of class warfare being used on musicians disguised as a music player!

    I basically lost all my drive to make something of my love of creating music seeing how little anyone in my society actually values music or musicians in terms of material support and reward, it is honestly pretty scary how broken music has become.

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Walk me through this.

      Before Spotify, I’d buy a record (physical or digital) and listen to that. I pay the artist once. After Spotify, I buy a record and listen to it on Spotify. I pay the artist the normal record price and there’s a long tail from stream payouts (unless they don’t reach the payout threshold).

      Before Spotify, if someone heard a song and didn’t buy the record, they didn’t pay the artist. After Spotify, if they still don’t buy a record, the artist now earns from stream payouts.

      Finally, before Spotify, if someone bought a record but stopped buying after Spotify, the artist loses that record purchase. This is definitely bad. Was Spotify the real reason? Would something other than Spotify have pulled them away? What levels of fame are materially affected by this?

      Do artists have to pay to be on Spotify? Is that the issue?

  • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Please, people, for the love of the gods, stop using Spotify. There are numerous other services that are so much better value for your money and don’t treat artists (as much) like trash.

    And that being said, try to support your beloved artists directly as much as you can. Buying digital downloads or physical media will give them more money than a lifetime of streaming ever would. Plus you get to keep the higher-quality music even if the platform or artist goes tits-up.

    • azezeB@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Could you give me some examples of alternative services? I’m paying spotify right now, but i’ll love to ditch it.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s not really just Spotify. I’m a hobbyist music producer. I uploaded my entire catalog through Distrokid about two years ago. Distrokid serves just about every streaming service. It costs $20 a year for the most basic package. I’ve got ~8 million listens according to Distrokid, and that nets me about $40 US. So, I made my money back. Not bad for 20 years of work. Haha!

    I don’t really care about the numbers, like I said, I’m a hobbyist. I make music because I enjoy making music. It would never be my career unless I dropped everything and struck out touring trying to make it in an industry that traditionally chews up and spits out hopefuls. I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either

      Idk. I was happy to pay to hear Mic Jagger live and he looks like shit.

      Worst case scenario, just become the new Gorillas

  • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I mean, Spotify is a great service for the consumer. One reasonable monthly fee for most of the music in the world.

    If a similar video streaming service existed for 40€/month, I’d pay for it in a heartbeat. Now I have a plethora of arr apps and a vpn, and Plex. But it’s a hassle sometimes.

    We’re all aware of the issues it created for the artists, and I’d be willing to double the fee if that money directly went to the artists, but this is where the capitalist model fails, as that won’t maximize the profits for shareholders.

    If we ever come up with a way to fix the underlying greed models that come with publicly traded companies, that would be great.

    As it stands, it is what it is, but I’m glad we have this, instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Spotify is a great service for the consumer. One reasonable monthly fee for most of the music in the world.

      Plus ads.

      instead of a “different Spotify per music publisher”.

      I was perfectly happy with Napster, before it got blown up.

      As it stands, I’ve been leaning on SoundCloud and Bandcamp when I’m hunting for something indie and pirating or going vinyl for anything mainstream.

      Spotify’s model is doomed to fail over time. Far better to own the media than stream it.

      • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not sure about the ads? If you mean when the app notifies you about live gigs etc. then yeah, that’s shittification. Luckily it doesn’t happen on my desk or car, but I wish it didn’t sometimes appear on my phone. That’s the one thing that might push me to add music to my video streaming arr stack.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Certain content (podcasts, most notably) insert ads into the feed above and beyond what Spotify Premium ostensibly removes. There’s also Spotify’s persistent need to blow up your phone with notifications and bloat your in-app screen, but at least some of that you can silence manually.

          My wife has Spotify and she’s noticed the increased pressure to be always-online, as well. We were on a flight, and she’s got her take-off chill music, when she discovered putting the phone in airplane mood before starting up the app caused a bunch of bugs in her selection screen. Which - in the middle of a take-off that she did not enjoy - fucking sucked.

          The service is definitely getting worse over time. And when you can keep an enormous library of music locally, the service becomes harder and harder to justify imho.

          I’m perfectly happen to send $30/mo to Patreon for a few of my favorite artists. $12/mo for Spotify just feels like money down a well.