Yeah that is true from a monetary perspective. But even then, if people would rather listen to white noise then I guess that’s just how it is. Greedy people will be greedy tho.
I can understand, though, that someone who actually puts effort into producing music is kind of pissed if someone who simply uploads noise gets as much money per stream.
If someone is genuinely mad that people would rather listen to white noise than their music then they should start working on making something better than white noise
Exactly the point, any artist with actual talent wouldn’t and shouldn’t be concerned about someone making white noise. If they did, they are just pumping trash to make money and are not that different from what they hate.
You don’t seem to understand how Spotify works. There’s a fixed cake size that then gets shared between artists. If someone is just using Spotify as an overnight noise generator, the generator artist essentially siphons money away from actual artists.
It’s perfectly understandable that artists don’t like that. Especially given the already very low Spotify payouts.
I really don’t get this weirdly hostile stance here. Is gaming a system now somehow a noble act in itself? The same people who grin at the stoopid artist peoples here will become furious when Amazon uses perfectly legal tax evasion tactics. But that’s of course something completely different, because suddenly you are a victim.
I think it’s true that they’re taking advantage of the way the system works, but I think the reason people are hostile to the music labels is because the music labels are famously terrible to artists and consumers. Can’t really blame people for gaming a system that has been historically gamed by rich businesses to stack the deck in the favor anyway.
No? Ik limited customer base means their usage would be split but the people on white noise podcasts aren’t looking for music. If there weren’t any they would go to youtube not for other music. People listen to white noise because it’s white noise, not actual songs. And the examples you provide are completely missing the point. I am not saying it’s something to be proud but to cut them off cause you think they are making easy money is definitely not something to be proud of either. This sort of thinking is simply corporate greed, that’s why I am opposed to it. The only reason I can see someone would be mad about is jealousy.
I don’t. Art is subjective, YouTubers talk about this all the time where 2 YouTubers will do a video on the same topic and for what ever reason 1 will do way better despite being made worse than the other video. People watch what they want to watch
I can definitely understand that response, but people that feel that way are misconstruing the situation. Traditional podcasts and music are there for entertainment, and/or sometimes education for podcasts, and compete against each other for that. Most people listening to white noise are likely using it as a tool, not for entertainment, it isn’t beating out music as an option in most cases, they aren’t competing.
Yes, they are competing. Spotify only has a limited amount of money to distribute between artists and if “low effort” artists get more money, that means “regular” artists get less. It’s that simple.
Why complain that your song has to compete with white noise, podcasts, and other people’s music? It’s obvious that your entertainment has to compete with other entertainment. If you can’t compete, just move to a “low effort” market…
If Spotify would move out white noise to its own platform or Spotify removes white noise and a different platform picks it up; I would pay less for a Spotify subscription anyways.
My understanding was Spotify pays by the stream. Not out of some pool that is distributed based off a percentage of time spent listening compared to everything they have. Some quick Google searches show .003-.005 dollars per stream on average. Assuming Spotify will increase stream payouts if they don’t have to pay for “low quality” artists is like assuming a company will pay it’s employees more if they get a tax break. These streams are taking from Spotify, not other artists, because few people looking for white noise would choose these other artists if the white noise was unavailable. They would likely simply go to another app that does have white noise.
Spotify needs to get the money somehow first. They can’t increase prices indefinitely, and they can’t lower royalties indefinitely. That’s a rather simple calculation.
My understanding was Spotify pays by the stream. Not out of some pool that is distributed based off a percentage of time spent listening compared to everything they have.
From the article…
Universal Music Group’s CEO Lucian Grainge and Warner Music’s CEO Robert Kyncl have both voiced their displeasure at the fact that songs filled with noise are paid out of the same royalty pool shared by their superstars.
Yeah that is true from a monetary perspective. But even then, if people would rather listen to white noise then I guess that’s just how it is. Greedy people will be greedy tho.
I can understand, though, that someone who actually puts effort into producing music is kind of pissed if someone who simply uploads noise gets as much money per stream.
If someone is genuinely mad that people would rather listen to white noise than their music then they should start working on making something better than white noise
It’s not a competition for airtime, but a competition for money.
Exactly the point, any artist with actual talent wouldn’t and shouldn’t be concerned about someone making white noise. If they did, they are just pumping trash to make money and are not that different from what they hate.
You don’t seem to understand how Spotify works. There’s a fixed cake size that then gets shared between artists. If someone is just using Spotify as an overnight noise generator, the generator artist essentially siphons money away from actual artists.
It’s perfectly understandable that artists don’t like that. Especially given the already very low Spotify payouts.
I really don’t get this weirdly hostile stance here. Is gaming a system now somehow a noble act in itself? The same people who grin at the stoopid artist peoples here will become furious when Amazon uses perfectly legal tax evasion tactics. But that’s of course something completely different, because suddenly you are a victim.
I think it’s true that they’re taking advantage of the way the system works, but I think the reason people are hostile to the music labels is because the music labels are famously terrible to artists and consumers. Can’t really blame people for gaming a system that has been historically gamed by rich businesses to stack the deck in the favor anyway.
No? Ik limited customer base means their usage would be split but the people on white noise podcasts aren’t looking for music. If there weren’t any they would go to youtube not for other music. People listen to white noise because it’s white noise, not actual songs. And the examples you provide are completely missing the point. I am not saying it’s something to be proud but to cut them off cause you think they are making easy money is definitely not something to be proud of either. This sort of thinking is simply corporate greed, that’s why I am opposed to it. The only reason I can see someone would be mad about is jealousy.
I don’t. Art is subjective, YouTubers talk about this all the time where 2 YouTubers will do a video on the same topic and for what ever reason 1 will do way better despite being made worse than the other video. People watch what they want to watch
I can definitely understand that response, but people that feel that way are misconstruing the situation. Traditional podcasts and music are there for entertainment, and/or sometimes education for podcasts, and compete against each other for that. Most people listening to white noise are likely using it as a tool, not for entertainment, it isn’t beating out music as an option in most cases, they aren’t competing.
Yes, they are competing. Spotify only has a limited amount of money to distribute between artists and if “low effort” artists get more money, that means “regular” artists get less. It’s that simple.
Why complain that your song has to compete with white noise, podcasts, and other people’s music? It’s obvious that your entertainment has to compete with other entertainment. If you can’t compete, just move to a “low effort” market…
If Spotify would move out white noise to its own platform or Spotify removes white noise and a different platform picks it up; I would pay less for a Spotify subscription anyways.
My understanding was Spotify pays by the stream. Not out of some pool that is distributed based off a percentage of time spent listening compared to everything they have. Some quick Google searches show .003-.005 dollars per stream on average. Assuming Spotify will increase stream payouts if they don’t have to pay for “low quality” artists is like assuming a company will pay it’s employees more if they get a tax break. These streams are taking from Spotify, not other artists, because few people looking for white noise would choose these other artists if the white noise was unavailable. They would likely simply go to another app that does have white noise.
Spotify needs to get the money somehow first. They can’t increase prices indefinitely, and they can’t lower royalties indefinitely. That’s a rather simple calculation.
From the article…
I wanna ask Spotify the same question i wanna ask media companies about region locking because of copyright shenanigans:
Why do you make your system to my problem?
I put great effort into masturbation yet receive no compensation either. What’s your point?