Help!!!!!!! Downloading music "that isnt on itunes and may not cost anything" if you get my drift

monquixote

fretmeister said:

Presumably artists can opt out if they so desire.

Are there any stats on what percentage of the cash you pay goes to artists?

They have £120 a year out of me and I would hope a decent percentage of that goes to musicians.

Frank Gambal did a blog about it. 17,000 plays of one of his songs earned him 15 cents. So that is 0.0008 cents per play.

It seems really hard to get accurate data on it. Franks post doesn't tally with this

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/19/zoe-keating-spotify-streaming-royalties

or this http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/17/spotify-royalties-appear-to-be-awfully-high-despite-what-thom-yorke-says/

It's hard to know who to believe. 

octatonic

fretmeister said:

monquixote said:

octatonic said:

monquixote said:

octatonic said:

Spotify works great if you don't care about compensating musicians and songwriters for their efforts.

As compared to illegally downloading music like most people do.

Yes, both examples of eminently cuntifular behaviour.

Presumably artists can opt out if they so desire.

Are there any stats on what percentage of the cash you pay goes to artists?

They have £120 a year out of me and I would hope a decent percentage of that goes to musicians.

Frank Gambal did a blog about it. 17,000 plays of one of his songs earned him 15 cents. So that is 0.0008 cents per play.

That is even less than I get.

I think it is something like 0.07p per stream.

monquixote

octatonic said:

That is even less than I get.

I think it is something like 0.07p per stream.

Who is it via?

Is it because they have a bad deal with Spotify, or they aren't passing on the money to you?

octatonic

monquixote said:

octatonic said:

That is even less than I get.

I think it is something like 0.07p per stream.

Who is it via?

Is it because they have a bad deal with Spotify, or they aren't passing on the money to you?

Various sources- I've worked for a lot of different labels over the years, including Sony as well as some independent artists who have gone up via Reverb Nation.

This demonstrably isn't me getting screwed by the labels- the accounting is transparent.

I'm not going to post my accounts online though for reasons that should be obvious, but please take me at my word- Spotify is a bad deal for artists.

monquixote

That's really fucking irritating. 

Spotify are losing money and the artists aren't getting it, so where is it going?

I wonder if they dropped the free tier if they could pay people properly.

I want to pay for music, but if Spotify is a scam I'm back to square one where nothing on the market actually works for me.

octatonic

monquixote said:

That's really fucking irritating. 

Spotify are losing money and the artists aren't getting it, so where is it going?

I wonder if they dropped the free tier if they could pay people properly.

I want to pay for music, but if Spotify is a scam I'm back to square one where nothing on the market actually works for me.

IMHO the problem is they have free accounts.

Spotify HAVE to pay per stream.

The ads don't generate enough income to cover the massive amount of free accounts.

It isn't a case of them making loads of money and handing it all to the labels.

They don't generate enough income for the number of streams because most people have free accounts.

It is a flawed business model but it is also squeezing out other possible business models because people now expect music to be essentially free.

Drew_TNBD

We're on Spotify. Aggregator is CDBaby.

They pay relatively little for a play - less than a penny for sure. I swear I posted some of our data on here recently.

monquixote

Drew_fx said:

We're on Spotify. Aggregator is CDBaby.

They pay relatively little for a play - less than a penny for sure. I swear I posted some of our data on here recently.

Well you are on one of my playlists so I've probably contributed 0.000001c to your music career. 

Drew_TNBD

monquixote said:

Drew_fx said:

We're on Spotify. Aggregator is CDBaby.

They pay relatively little for a play - less than a penny for sure. I swear I posted some of our data on here recently.

Well you are on one of my playlists so I've probably contributed 0.000001c to your music career. 

Cheers bro

ICBM

Get yourself round your local charity shops tomorrow morning. You should be able to find enough Ministry Of Sound, Hed Kandi etc - or even Now That's What I Call Music (you're looking for numbers in the 20-40 range roughly) - compilations to keep the party going til about the middle of next week for £1-£3 each.

There's actually some surprisingly good music on some of them if you keep an open mind too!

holnrew

Something where you can pay per play, up to the point where you'd have spent enough to buy the song outright seems quite fair to me. That way you don't spend much on the music you don't like, but you pay what the artist is due, without paying too much.

viz

BOOK A QUEEN TRIBUTE BAND.

monquixote

viz said:

BOOK A QUEEN TRIBUTE BAND.

Do you know of a good one?

viz

Actually no - I left ours. Only kidding, they got another guitarist who's a complete Brian May expert, has all the right guitars and amps and plays note for note. In fact he's in two Queen tribute bands! Yes, Cambridge has two. In fact, 0.01% of the population of Cambridge is in a Queen tribute band.

Travisthedog

The band is taken care of. Obviously it's the mighty speedway snails - selected because we said we'd do it for free.

viz

Fazer

according to david byrne in this article - http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world:

"For perspective, Daft Punk's song of the summer, "Get Lucky", reached 104,760,000 Spotify streams by the end of August: the two Daft Punk guys stand to make somewhere around $13,000 each"

so thats about 0.00025c per play.
how much should it cost for a playback? i think thats the equivalent of a person paying $1 for the track and then playing it 4000 times.
either way, 105,000,000 is a staggering amount of listens which has only made $26,000 for the artists involved, and that isnt a lottery ticket or free money, it cost them to make the track in the first place - recording equipment and recording costs, living expenses etc.

the comments section of that article, and similar ones, is even more depressing - the amount of bile, aggression and hatred aimed at artists who would like to make some kind of living from art, or even just cover their bloody costs, is bewildering to me.
and this is from what you would hope would be a more progressive and liberal newspaper.

dafuzz

ICBM said:

Get yourself round your local charity shops tomorrow morning. You should be able to find enough Ministry Of Sound, Hed Kandi etc - or even Now That's What I Call Music (you're looking for numbers in the 20-40 range roughly) - compilations to keep the party going til about the middle of next week for £1-£3 each.

There's actually some surprisingly good music on some of them if you keep an open mind too!

Good shout - they also tend to have hundreds of those free CDs that came with newspapers a few years back. That's how I built my collection of 90s shit pop anyway

dafuzz

Just a thought: wouldn't Spotify have t&cs that prohibit the public broadcasting of its music tracks? Also shouldn't the OP have to pay something to broadcast music anyway - via PRS or whatever? Might as well just torrent the fucking songs the artist is getting screwed either way, at least by nicking them a shitty corporate middleman isn't getting paid for doing sod all

octatonic

You don't need a PPL or PRS license for playing music at a domestic party.

http://www.ppluk.com/I-Play-Music/Businesses/Why-do-I-need-a-licence/

'In contrast, any recorded music being played as part of domestic home life or when there is an audience entirely comprised of friends and/or family (such as at a private family party) does not require a PPL licence. '