Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Should Spotify payments go to artists you actually listen to?

By Eric RANDOLPH and Philippe GRELARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

If you don't give a song at least 30 seconds to play it is not considered a stream. People are quite impatient with suggested songs they have not heard before so new artists are definitely suffering from the quick FFW clicks. Hopefully this new pay-out suggestion helps a bit. The biggest issue for these artists is getting heard beyond the 30 second threshold.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Should Spotify payments go to artists you actually listen to?

Of course, who else should it go to?? The current system is a creativity-killer only making rich people richer.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

I pay for Spotify Premium but I didn't realize that money went to people I don't listen to. That's poor.

There has always been lots of racketeering in the music industry, and there were penniless bands even in the golden age of huge sales of CDs that cost a fraction of vinyl to produce but commanded much higher prices. Even if you buy a song now on ITunes, Apple takes 30%. That is a crazy high percentage for simply hosting a file and accepting a payment.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

As long as I can listen to music for free, I am happy. I sometimes play music in my house, and just to have people listen is joy enough.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The new idea sounds better, but I'd have to see a breakdown to really understand how this all works.

At the same time, if struggling artists are only making money from streaming, maybe they should do some live shows (after the virus stuff) to make up the difference? No? Plus, there are multiple platforms to stream from: Apple music, Youtube, Soundcloud, Tidal, etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

With all the money Spotify is making, they should pay out a much higher percentage to all the artists out of that pot. Without them, they wouldn't be making any money.

Artists would be happier and Spotify would still be making billions.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So Japanese artists must be better off since Physical albums are still a thing here. Lucky they didn't embrace streaming rapidly like the west.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Even if you buy a song now on ITunes, Apple takes 30%. That is a crazy high percentage for simply hosting a file and accepting a payment.

The best option for now is simply to buy music directly from the artists on platforms such as bandcamp or soundcloud, or from their label's website, and then upload it to your spotifiy/itunes/youtube music.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I frankly don't see how it will make a difference. If the pool is being distributed based on who has the most streams, wouldn't that be exactly the same if it's broken down by individual users? Wouldn't the same number of individual users still be streaming the same amount of Drake, Ariana Grande, etc?

I can see where it might feel more rewarding to individual users who listen to new & upcoming artists to be directly contributing, but the end result will still be the same.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Spotify’s per-play rate was between 0.003 and 0.005 cents in 2020 for most artists. So if an artist’s sole income was from Spotify, and that artist was paid 0.005 cents per play and averaged 1 million plays per month, that artist’s yearly income would be only $60,000.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes and a definite "YES!"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If people hope to earn money with their music and they already know they can't using such platform then why are they using it?

If she wants her earnings from her music she should share with her musicians, songwriters and even those who helped her. At least she got fame than others around her.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yes they should.

The contracts are unjust and the imbalance of power needs to be addressed as it was for consumer contracts. While I don’t normally approve of the state getting involved in contractual matters but where one party is a large corporation with swarms of lawyers an the other party is without the same resources then the result can never be equitable and some mechanism is necessary to even up the balance.

It is proof of how unjust it is and has been that so many successful groups and artists have once they were successful and had the resources to do so have successful sued the companies on the unjust contracts imposed on them in their early days.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites