Spotify owner says artists need to release more music when asked about low rates that are paid for streams
- Thread starter AP2.5
- Start date
Dwayne
Not Like Us
What part of fuck Russ you didn't catch b lol
I don't give a shit about his opinion on anything
Inori
NAWF
with all the numbers that folks are putting out to compare... this is the only one I've seen someone suggesting the gap in profits for artist is the wide in favor of TIDAL.
You would think these services would advertise that sorta thing.
I dont pay for any of these streaming services either...
Well Tidal from day one has been saying the artist matters and that's why they were giving artists larger shares of the streaming revenue
They had a rough start but looks like things have settled
Shenco
Active Member
Tidal always talked about paying artists the most. From that press conference with all those artists on stage until now. The main selling point for tidal has always been that they pay artists more than other streaming services because artists get a piece of the company or something like that(not sure can't remember).
The problem is Tidal doesn't have as much content as those other services and is perceived as lesser than Spotify and Apple Music. Thus Tidal has a smaller audience than those two. So basically it becomes a numbers game. If you want to get your music out to the most people and cast a significantly wider net, you're going to have to put more stuff on Apple music and Spotify than you would Tidal.
Busta Carmichael
LOT - Full-Time Kufi/Yarmulke Smacker
Lol have you always been here?
Busta Carmichael
LOT - Full-Time Kufi/Yarmulke Smacker
BTW Spotify don't owe these artist shit.
The label their signed to do. Do these artist pay Spotify? Did they sign to them?
Nah they get their music on there for free and get money for it.
The levels of entitlement smh
The label their signed to do. Do these artist pay Spotify? Did they sign to them?
Nah they get their music on there for free and get money for it.
The levels of entitlement smh
Put your other glasses on and read this through those lenses b
This the wrong point to try to make
Busta Carmichael
LOT - Full-Time Kufi/Yarmulke Smacker
Haven't read through the thread but my point still stands.
Spotify is a helping tool which benefits the artists and shouldn't be your main source of income.
What if spotify just shut down or didn't exist? Would they have something to complain about?
My brother got his music on Spotify and not once have he complained, he's still working a 9-5 and glad his music is on a platform where he can receive some income.
Russ been telling everyone to get their music on tunecore instead anyways.
Again don't know the premise of the thread but thats just my take on artists complaining about streaming services that they get paid for putting on music and dont owe money back to.
It's not either or.
I give my music to a distributer and the distributer gets it on 35 different sites (Apple Music, iTunes, Spotify, Tidal, Google Play, Napster, etc.) The distributer takes 20% of the royalties and my record label keeps 80%. Since it's my record label I reinvest the money and release another album. But if my label had another artist, that artist wouldn't get to keep that 80%. The record label would probably take a bigger share than the signed artist.
I give my music to a distributer and the distributer gets it on 35 different sites (Apple Music, iTunes, Spotify, Tidal, Google Play, Napster, etc.) The distributer takes 20% of the royalties and my record label keeps 80%. Since it's my record label I reinvest the money and release another album. But if my label had another artist, that artist wouldn't get to keep that 80%. The record label would probably take a bigger share than the signed artist.