Is it really much different to how much artists got from radio?
Most artists never got radio money because it went into a label slush fund and was spent retaining the tent pole artists.
Most artists never got radio money because it went into a label slush fund and was spent retaining the tent pole artists.
They received some money up front in a contract to record the album, and the label make the money from sales.
There is a reason the bands toured and sold teeshirts.
Radio didn't pay much, but it was promotion for the album.
Spotify doesn't pay much, and it _replaces_ the album.
150,000,000 streams typically generates $560k _before_ the label cut.
Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person -- not just because you repeatedly lie and distort to defend your position -- but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse".
There's no way to respond to that.
No it's not. I'm saying that artists have always had a shit deal, singling out Spotify doesn't help the systematic problems. I don't use Spotify, I purchase via Bandcamp but that's also because long term its cheaper for me.
> Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person
I'm immoral because I don't think that artists have ever had it good? Alright Mr. RIAA.
https://sociallifemagazine.com/the-archive/90s-record-deals-...
If you actually want to defend artists... I suggest _not_ drawing equivalence between the old (bad) deal, and the new (much worse) deal.