Brotha thanks for the video...but you gotta give all the points and you're right about streams and income. But this is about theft. This is not even legal, to take people's royalties, because of some made-up rule by the Mayor Record Labels (who also are partial owners of Spotify) to literally steal artist money. That is the focus. Other than that we're reversing back to the days of "only some" will have a chance. Cheers! and thanks for the video!
Your example on the albums is perfect. That is about where I am. I'm releasing an album and an EP in the near future. It sucks to know that a release could generate over 10,000 streams and still be de-monetized with those funds being handed over to major label artists. That's who gets the biggest share of the pot 😡 This definitely has me reconsidering whether I need to include Spotify in my release strategy. 🤦🏾♂️
Spotify has cat fish artists. I'm cutting down the number of songs to EP & singles of new songs to 25% of what I recorded. The balance will be for sale only. Enjoy, DJ Hard.
I get around 7500 streams per month from around 250 songs so far on all platforms not just Spotify alone. Very few of those songs if any break 1000 per year on Spotify. This really does seem so wrong and I'm worried other streaming services will follow suit. But also not just artists, what about the distribution companies? They take 15% of what I earn. That must add up to a lot of money they also will lose out on if they have 1000's of artists on their books. Will they go out of business? They will certainly lose a huge amount depending on how many songs they distribute. This stinks I feel.
Personally, I agree with Spotify's decision. If you are making music where you aren't generating 1,000 streams in 365 days, aka 2.7(really 3) streams per day. You most likely aren't an artist that relies on money generated from the music in the first place. Well shouldn't say likely, you AREN'T an artist that relies on money generated from music in the first place. Making less than 1000 streams per year is giving you a maximum of $3-4 per song in year assuming you are A. constantly getting 999 plays, B. met with only non premium spotify accounts, C. they all play the entirety of your song and never skip it, D. from countries that yield the most money per stream. Assuming you are being realistic about these circumstances, you likely make 250 streams-500 streams per song and gain maybe $1-$2 max per year off of a song. On top of that, if you cannot even accumulate 1,000 plays on any or multiple of your most 'popular' songs. Then you likely aren't making consistent numbers between songs (example: one song has 300 streams, next song has 75 streams, next song has 22 streams, next song has 8 streams, next song has 54 streams so on so on). You as an artist who cannot even meet the 1,000 stream threshold, which is NOT a tall order in grand scheme of things... then you regardless likely won't see any money as is since most distributors have a minimum you have to take out to withdraw any royalties/profit made. I feel what is going on, is Spotify is attempting to bolster their 'low/middle class' by giving 10% more in revenue by scraping from the bottom that won't even efficiently be able to even use the money. It really does sound bad, but taking $1-5 a year from the smallest of small artists who doesn't rely on being paid from music in the slightest and giving it to people with say 100k monthly listeners who are probably on the verge of making music their only job a 10% raise. Will do nothing but help Spotify artists in general. I PROMISE that anyone who feels mad about this now, will feel happy when they break that 1,000 barrier and are getting paid average $3-4 per 1k vs what is normally $2.1-2.6 for small artists. At the end of the day, the opportunity cost is there and it is MUCH in the favor of the bigger artists. Either can give 1 million small artists $5 a year or give 10 thousand bigger artists an extra $1 PER 1k streams...
Did you think about Artists who have a back catalogue with more than 200 songs the will miss potentially 400000 streams a year included the one on Deezer. Spotify is stealing from the poor and give it to the rich. You could also say the artist who make more than 20k should give some money to the artists who don't earn so much music. Point is you should been paid for every stream you get may that be 1 or 1000000.
Spotify is going to implode Streaming is completely unsustainable
Brotha thanks for the video...but you gotta give all the points and you're right about streams and income. But this is about theft. This is not even legal, to take people's royalties, because of some made-up rule by the Mayor Record Labels (who also are partial owners of Spotify) to literally steal artist money. That is the focus. Other than that we're reversing back to the days of "only some" will have a chance. Cheers! and thanks for the video!
This may cause the downfall of Spotify.
I’m definitely pulling my subscription from Spotify 💯
Your example on the albums is perfect. That is about where I am. I'm releasing an album and an EP in the near future. It sucks to know that a release could generate over 10,000 streams and still be de-monetized with those funds being handed over to major label artists. That's who gets the biggest share of the pot 😡
This definitely has me reconsidering whether I need to include Spotify in my release strategy. 🤦🏾♂️
Right on 👍
Spotify has cat fish artists. I'm cutting down the number of songs to EP & singles of new songs to 25% of what I recorded.
The balance will be for sale only. Enjoy,
DJ Hard.
I get around 7500 streams per month from around 250 songs so far on all platforms not just Spotify alone. Very few of those songs if any break 1000 per year on Spotify. This really does seem so wrong and I'm worried other streaming services will follow suit. But also not just artists, what about the distribution companies? They take 15% of what I earn. That must add up to a lot of money they also will lose out on if they have 1000's of artists on their books. Will they go out of business? They will certainly lose a huge amount depending on how many songs they distribute. This stinks I feel.
Personally, I agree with Spotify's decision. If you are making music where you aren't generating 1,000 streams in 365 days, aka 2.7(really 3) streams per day. You most likely aren't an artist that relies on money generated from the music in the first place. Well shouldn't say likely, you AREN'T an artist that relies on money generated from music in the first place. Making less than 1000 streams per year is giving you a maximum of $3-4 per song in year assuming you are A. constantly getting 999 plays, B. met with only non premium spotify accounts, C. they all play the entirety of your song and never skip it, D. from countries that yield the most money per stream.
Assuming you are being realistic about these circumstances, you likely make 250 streams-500 streams per song and gain maybe $1-$2 max per year off of a song. On top of that, if you cannot even accumulate 1,000 plays on any or multiple of your most 'popular' songs. Then you likely aren't making consistent numbers between songs (example: one song has 300 streams, next song has 75 streams, next song has 22 streams, next song has 8 streams, next song has 54 streams so on so on). You as an artist who cannot even meet the 1,000 stream threshold, which is NOT a tall order in grand scheme of things... then you regardless likely won't see any money as is since most distributors have a minimum you have to take out to withdraw any royalties/profit made.
I feel what is going on, is Spotify is attempting to bolster their 'low/middle class' by giving 10% more in revenue by scraping from the bottom that won't even efficiently be able to even use the money. It really does sound bad, but taking $1-5 a year from the smallest of small artists who doesn't rely on being paid from music in the slightest and giving it to people with say 100k monthly listeners who are probably on the verge of making music their only job a 10% raise. Will do nothing but help Spotify artists in general.
I PROMISE that anyone who feels mad about this now, will feel happy when they break that 1,000 barrier and are getting paid average $3-4 per 1k vs what is normally $2.1-2.6 for small artists. At the end of the day, the opportunity cost is there and it is MUCH in the favor of the bigger artists. Either can give 1 million small artists $5 a year or give 10 thousand bigger artists an extra $1 PER 1k streams...
@Laukas This couldn't be more of a made up reply LMFAO
Did you think about Artists who have a back catalogue with more than 200 songs the will miss potentially 400000 streams a year included the one on Deezer. Spotify is stealing from the poor and give it to the rich. You could also say the artist who make more than 20k should give some money to the artists who don't earn so much music. Point is you should been paid for every stream you get may that be 1 or 1000000.
As I've said from day one: Fuck Spotify, and Fuck Streaming altogether ‼🤬
New subscriber
Thank you for the content I would love for us to have a conversation about something big coming please tell me how we could get in touch?