> That leaves a very small amount for artists. Which is wrong. But what are you going to do?
I mean, you could start by taking a glance at the billions of dollars amassed but Spotify’s owners as a starting point.
I mean, you could start by taking a glance at the billions of dollars amassed but Spotify’s owners as a starting point.
So what action does that leave?
I only listen to hundreds of musicians and Spotify gives me those hundreds for $15/mo.
Those hundreds change by 10% ~ 30% every month into other hundreds.
I don't feel any ethical need to compensate musicians I don't listen to. And the ones I do listen to I don't feel strongly enough attached to to pay more than $15/mo for recurring access.
There are perhaps 10 whose permanent media I would buy and replay, if they left Spotify.
I bet you don't. Since without the musicians there's no music, and without Spotify there's Apple Music, CD's, Napster, and so on and so forth.
The degree to which people attempt to ignore the value of recorded music from a financial standpoint always bothers me. It's one of the most enduring and useful things that makes people happy in the history of civilization. It's important to nearly all people in all cultures on earth, and unites and inspires us.
The largest peaceful gatherings of human beings that have ever happened, and ever happen, are people getting together to hear music performed.
So I disagree. I think you aren't actually allocating the value of music creation vs music distribution correctly,
Spotify's owners have made it easy for me to listen to those hundreds I like. I don't get any value at all from the creation of those billions I don't listen to. I get daily value from the creation of Spotify's owners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ek
When he was born he didn't have billions of dollars. Now he does. Pretty sure it came from Spotify.