When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.

By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s not really just Spotify. I’m a hobbyist music producer. I uploaded my entire catalog through Distrokid about two years ago. Distrokid serves just about every streaming service. It costs $20 a year for the most basic package. I’ve got ~8 million listens according to Distrokid, and that nets me about $40 US. So, I made my money back. Not bad for 20 years of work. Haha!

    I don’t really care about the numbers, like I said, I’m a hobbyist. I make music because I enjoy making music. It would never be my career unless I dropped everything and struck out touring trying to make it in an industry that traditionally chews up and spits out hopefuls. I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.

    • mPony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 months ago

      not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect

      What gets me is that, for the right style of music, age or attractiveness shouldn’t matter as much as it does. You should be able to create your art, whatever kind of art it is, and have the art itself be judged on its merits. Instead we’ve got a bunch of our culture still somehow wrapped up in these veneers of attractiveness. It’s kind of maddening, to be honest. If you’re in your 50’s and making 90’s style Acid House or 2000’s style Trance it shouldn’t matter what you look like. If you’re a DJ it shouldn’t matter if you look like Shirley Temple or Shirley Manson. And yet here we are.

      8 million listens netting you only 40 bucks really is insane, isn’t it? I used to think radio royalties were bad: I remember Sting talking about how every time Roxanne got played on the radio someone somewhere got 3 cents. He didn’t say who got the 3 cents, nor did he say how much of that 3 cents went to him. I’m not 100% sure about those numbers (“my memory is muddy, what’s this river that I’m in?”) but they’re a damn sight more impressive than whatever crumbs the streaming companies are paying, somehow a thousand times less than the radio. Spotify’s announcement last year that they weren’t even going to bother paying for songs with less than 1000 streams per month was a shocker - what stops them from making it 2000, or 10,000?

      Still, being a hobbyist isn’t all bad. I’ve been releasing jazz cover-versions of pop songs for about 2.5 years now, and have netted about 25 bucks so far :) Who knew jazz versions of Toxic or Rusted From The Rain could be so popular?

      • HungryJerboa@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You could always don a stage persona like Marshmello or Daft Punk. Then nobody cares what you look like under the mask.

    • UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).

      But regardless, I think there is an element of selling your soul to Hollywood to really make it big, and I just don’t have that kind of commitment at this point in my life. I like relaxing and anonymity.

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).

        There’s never a better time to put yourself out there! I resisted it for twenty years. My most “successful” release is one of my least polished tracks. I recorded it just out of university on a Pentium with a stolen microphone, pirated software, a freebie guitar, and a ZOOM 505. It’s got 4 million listens and is responsible for half my income. By comparison, I’ve released stuff that I think sounds like it was professionally recorded in a studio that no one listens to.

        • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          It’s funny like that, isn’t it?

          You catch lightning in a bottle in 5 minutes using Reaper, then spend 100x the time on another song that just vanishes.

          Peaches most popular song was a tape recording off the sound desk in a German bar.

          • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yep.

            Another one of my most popular tracks is an atonal hour-and-twenty-minutes of cubic spline curves, granular synthesis, and other assorted noises I programmed in Csound.

    • afox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      I appreciate this. Can I have a listen? I also make music… Sometimes.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either

      Idk. I was happy to pay to hear Mic Jagger live and he looks like shit.

      Worst case scenario, just become the new Gorillas

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not sure I’d use one of the most iconic sexy lead singers in history as an example. No matter much how much he looks like shit now.

    • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.

      Just start making IDM. Looking weird and/or unattractive seems to be a requirement (and, don’t get me wrong, I’m here for it)