Taylor Swift’s Stand on Royalties Draws a Rebuttal from Spotify | Hacker News Reader

Taylor Swift’s Stand on Royalties Draws a Rebuttal from Spotify

nytimes.com

42 pointsdnetesn78 comments

The interesting thing about the "we're better than piracy" model is that you always have to be better than piracy, because piracy will always be there.

Unlike piracy, when you pay for a service, you're making a judgement about the service as a whole. Many people are willing to use a couple different free services, but probably not piecemeal paid services to get the same experience. So, unlike piracy, Spotify has to have a catalog that makes most users think "yeah, they have all the music I want to listen to". Especially as a top artist, Taylor Swift has a lot of power in this relationship, because of the impetus that Spotify has to provide a "full" catalog.

Hopefully, this model continues, and artists like Taylor Swift continue to push back. The system of 20 years ago had too little power in the artists, too much power in the distribution, and too little choice for consumers. I like that the middleman / channel delivery is now the one who has to provide value, and the artists can take their music elsewhere. It gives artists power, allows competition in distribution, and provides more consumer choice. We could go too far along any of those axes, but this sort of fight is, imho, pushing things in the right direction.

It really drives things home since it's Taylor. When I think of most music services especially when you mention the point of "piecemeal" ways to cobble together services to ensure you can listen to EVERYTHING you wish, I think of myself (sort of a savvy power user) and I think of the large majority that are just basic computer users.

A utopian music situation? The only way to truthfully do that is to delve into the illegal download category unless you are dead set on buying physical copies of everything, or settling for streaming through an iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, etc. When I think of reasons why X service exploded or Y Software was the definition of music downloads it usually points to one common feature: ease of use. Sure, anybody can learn to torrent music, surf IRC chat rooms for albums and songs, get accepted to user groups or private sites of the like, but until it is as easy as AudioGalaxy, Napster, Spotify, the iTunes Store, etc., and it's back catalog can rival the greatest music pirate -- it will never permeate the way a company would wish.

It's a weird tango these companies play. They have the blue print of success (if you ignore legal standpoints) with the first two programs I mentioned above (AudioGalaxy / Napster) + any torrent site / "warez" site. The trick is convincing the music industry to play ball. So long as they have their greedy, sticky fingers in the giant pot somebody is always going to leave the deal feeling like a loser.

Apparently ms. Swift made ~$500k USD in revenue from Spotify. That's equivalent to 50000 records. She sold over 1 million records.

Given that one has to agree it's a near-certainty that Spotify eats into record sales at least a bit ... so her position certainly makes sense.

> Part of Spotify’s pitch to the music industry has been that its royalties — as low as 0.6 cent per stream, according to the company — will accrue to significant levels as the service grows

> “Wake Me Up” had been played 168 million times in the United States on that service, yet yielded only $12,359 in publishing royalties, of which he kept less than $4,000.

These numbers don't remotely add up - they're off by 2 orders of magnitude. What gives?

The $0.006/stream is total payments for everything songwriter, label, performing - everything.

Let's say a radio station with 1m listeners plays a song 168 times. How much does the radio station pay out for those 168 plays, and how much ends up as publishing royalties, etc?

I honestly have no idea...

Been a while since music business class, but here is what I remember:

Radio stations don't pay per play. They buy a blanket license from performing rights organizations. Then those organizations listen to sample data and divvy out payments to publishers according to what their sample data says.

Artists such as Taylor Swift have to pay for that air time. Payola is alive and well. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310606

> Part of Spotify’s pitch to the music industry has been that its royalties — as low as 0.6 cent per stream, according to the company — will accrue to significant levels as the service grows and as people listen more and more.

> Singling out Pandora, the leading Internet radio outlet, he said that “Wake Me Up” had been played 168 million times in the United States on that service, yet yielded only $12,359 in publishing royalties, of which he kept less than $4,000.

Spotify != Pandora

The answer to your question is in the same sentence as your quotes.

You can’t look at Spotify in isolation – even though Taylor can pull her music off Spotify, her songs are all over services and sites like YouTube and Soundcloud, where people can listen all they want for free. To say nothing of the fans who will just turn back to pirate services [...]. And sure enough, if you looked at the top spot on The Pirate Bay last week, there was [Taylor's latest album] '1989'...

This is the money quote. I'm one of them, a paying Spotify subscriber who downloaded Taylor's 1989 album off PB.

Also, I think artists confuse money extracted 'per pay' with money extracted 'per customer'. They should focus on the latter.

If my choices as a consumer are these two:

1. Buy 10 plastic disks with music etched into them (CDs) per year, for $120 or

2. Pay $120 to artists and listen to all music.

These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away), but I get more value out of the second option (2). And the difference is huge!

In fact, when I only had the first option (1) I rarely took it, i.e. I didn't buy many CDs (before piracy/internet). So, the artists didn't extract much earnings out of me.

Then comes Spotify (and friends), and suddenly there is an outcome where I'll part with $120 per year and artists earn money from me that they didn't before. They should embrace that, not focus on money per 'played song', rather on 'money earned per consumer/year'.

If you are going to argue in favor of Spotify, for a major breakout pop star like Taylor Swift, you probably need to focus on total revenue per year, a trickle of streaming royalties is going to be a lot less per consumer than she gets touring.

I was thinking mostly on artists in general, though Taylor sparked this discussion (the news article, etc).

I agree totally with your point, the economics for her (and other mega-stars) are likely different from the median artist.

The labels also play a part in this, they take most of the CD/online/radio revenues, where as artists keep most of their tour earnings (this is what I've heard). In such a model it may make perfect sense to restrict streaming, since it may tilt more people towards paying for a concert.

This may very well be 'revenue maximizing' for her, but I think for artists as a group they will may make more by extracting a reasonable sum from large swathes of people by providing a good chunk of value (e.g. Spotify/Pandora), then trying to drive up CD sales.

I think many artists with less exposure make an even larger portion of their income from appearances (vs licensing).

An absurd example: a piano man.

"...a trickle of [...] royalties is going to be a lot less per consumer than she gets touring."

This, artists have said for decades, has always been the case. They have to tour to make any money. The royalties (from radio play, from media sales) are a pittance.

You're "money" quote is provably wrong though. Her music isn't all over Youtube and other services. In fact, you proved this by having to go to the Pirate Bay to download it. They've done a great job at stopping it being available for free anywhere legally. Seriously, try to find any song from 1989 on Youtube that doesn't have a music video released. You can't.

>Then comes Spotify (and friends), and suddenly there is an outcome where I'll part with $120 per year and artists earn money from me that they didn't before. They should embrace that, not focus on money per 'played song', rather on 'money earned per consumer/year'.

Honestly, why should she? She just sold 1.3 million albums in a week. Talking in absolutes about this is silly. Just like when Radiohead released a pay what you want album, different methods will work for different artists. I commend Taylor for not doing what everyone else does just because. It took balls to go against the grain and she came out on top. Good for her. She's not advocating to make Spotify illegal or anything which would be where she loses me. Spotify is great for some things and great for some artists some of the time.

Interesting, then this is at least coordinated on their part.

I don't think I understand, wouldn't downloading it on TPB validate Spotify's statement?

Well, as others have pointed out her revenue maximizing probably includes more than streaming and CDs: tours, merchandise, sponsoring etc. play a big part too.

Maybe even the headings/PR from 'turning Spotify down' will generate enough extra attention to offset the loss of some poor people (me) turning to TBP, despite the album being top tanked on TBP.

My main point is that artists as a group should look focus on how they can increase their total earnings, not on how to maximize CD sales.

"It took balls" - might be time to reassess the expressions we use to indicate bravery.

I agree with you. Her album is the biggest album in potentially 10 years (The last album to sell this many in the first week was 10 years ago when overall sales were double) So it's going to be on the top of everything including PB. I think all of us would find it objectionable if we were told "You have to change the way you do business otherwise we're going to set up an illegal operation and kneecap you anyways" It may happen and it may be reality but that doesn't mean it's even close to being a justification for why an artist should change their approach.

Is there another hormone more correlated with brave (or reckless) behavior than testosterone?

Why does it have to be a hormone?

Whatever it Miss Taylor has it in spades based on his admiration.

Sure, maybe for Taylor Swift. Today. But she's in a position that literally no more than a handful of artists are in at any given moment.

For anyone else, the numbers and the equations are radically different.

She's making the bet that by removing it from Spotify more people will choose another legal way to purchase it than will choose piracy.

> These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away)

This is not "earning streams for artists," then, if you're willing to handwave away the huge amounts the record labels siphon away. It's "earnings streams for the recording industry." The nature of the spotify licensing deals, and the reason so many artists other than Taylor Swift are rebelling, is that spotify makes a bunch of money, the record labels make a bunch of money, and artists make a pittance but have no part in negotiating that deal. Not to say record labels provide no other benefits (promotion, production, logistics), but more and more, the best choice for artists is becoming to simply not participate in this system. For many, it's better to try to locate some middle ground where you can make a living with moderate success by selling directly to your fans than it is to buy the pop music lottery ticket and get either superstardom or (much much more likely) nothing.

> These two are equivalent earning streams for artists (ignoring the money that record labels siphon away), but I get more value out of the second option (2). And the difference is huge!

You get more value out of option #2, but I doubt the artists do.

This attitude is what I believe is really wrong with these streaming services: the value of the product being created is being significantly devalued. If you can't get it as part of the $10 / month you've decided you're willing to spend for access to 'all music', then you're just going to rip it off. Because Spotify does such a good job providing so much good music for so little money to individual listeners, they now balk at the idea of paying a real fair value for this work.

As an artist, she has every right to decide how much her music is worth and choose how she wants it distributed and paid for. I think these kinds of things are important once in a while to establish what the appropriate pricing levels and artist compensation should be.

> I’m not willing to contribute my life’s work to an experiment that I don’t feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music

A lot of megastars acknowledge that the success of their "life's work" is somewhat a function of luck. Internet radio's artist discovery mechanics scale down to give exposure to smaller artists. It seems to me like we're headed in a direction where a manufactured top-40 single, funded by huge corporations, isn't a prerequisite to success, and that just doesn't seem possible without disruptors like Spotify.

There's a difference between radio and Spotify. Radio is free for listeners, but the listeners don't really own the music or add it to their collection. So it's a promotional medium for the artist, and the listener pays money to "collect" the music from elsewhere. Spotify lets listeners collect music (even if it's not to own, just a subscription) but they hardly pay the artist anything. If a multi-platinum star only gets $6 million per year from Spotify, smaller artists can't make anything near a living.

Its not about making a living, it's about exposure. We live in a world where content created yesterday can go viral today and reach millions of people. Once you have the exposure, you can figure out how to monetize it. More and more, the ability to gain exposure is in the content creator's hands, not a middleman.

This whole argument is about whether putting your music on Spotify makes more money than keeping it off. The quote you started with is specifically about compensation.

Edit: If you're using Spotify for exposure, why get paid for plays? And why would you be happy that listeners can "keep" the music instead of buying it somewhere for more money? Spotify seems like the worst of both worlds.

Here was a good perspective from a 'smaller artist' (on Merge and Secretly Canadian) from reddit on this subject: http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/2ld32y/the_1_hit_sing...

Basically, they have seen decreased sales, increased streaming, and no increase in touring opportunities due to streaming services.

Your music have been heard by more people due to streaming, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was good enough (or the right type of music) for people to pay to come to see you in concert

That's a big thing, and it's hard to solve too, in both directions. Some might argue that artists don't get a fair shake when someone just hears one song in a playlist of other songs. Some even claim that you can't listen to one song, you have to listen to the album (Garth Brooks and Pink Floyd are two examples). On the other side of the coin, who here has bought an album after hearing one song on the radio, only to find out the rest of the album sounds completely different? I know much of my family bought Kid Rock's album when "Picture" came out on the radio, only to find out he's a rock/rap artist, not a country artist. They spent $20 on literally one song.

I've done that on Spotify. I hear a song I like and go to the entire album, to find I hate the rest of the album. That's fine. That one song goes in my playlist and I listen to it over and over again, and the artist gets paid for making a song I enjoy, rather than me not buying their album because I know there is only one song I will enjoy.

Streaming creates non-fans. Buying a CD creates a fan. In some rare occasion I'll hear something I like so much that I then download the album, but in most cases I just stream a subgenre of music.

The end result is that I don't know any artist very well, although I'm well versed in the subgenre. I have no desire to go to a show, as I don't know any artists.

Buying a CD, while a bigger decision, almost entrenches you as a fan. I'm much more likely to want to go to a Taylor Swift concert if I've listened to her CD 100 times (and I'm almost certainly not going to listen to ANY album 100 times with Spotify).

Neither model is better than the other to me. But they are different, and value accrues in different ways for the models.

My experience is totally different. Streaming made a fan of so many artists because I can listen to a whole album and connect to their music. And it also made go to a lot more shows, because I can get familiar with the artists before the show.

I guess that the difference might come from the fact I've never been a big buyer of CDs, growing up in Eastern Europe meant that I couldn't really afford music so pirating MP3's was the norm.

I posted the following comment at the bottom of Ek's post, but it was removed, so I am posting it here.

I really want artists to understand: Our interests are totally aligned with yours.

Spotify’s interests are not totally aligned with artists’ interests. Spotify’s interests are aligned with record labels and assorted middlemen, advertisers, and investors like Sean Parker, Li Ka-shing, KPCB, Coca-Cola, Fidelity, and others who want to see a big payout on their $500+ million investment. Artists get lip service when they complain, and at the end of the day, they get the scraps after everyone else has taken their cuts.

This is a good point. Record labels probably played an important role when sales was physical (stores, supply-chains, printing CDs, etc). Nowadays: I don't know what they do.

Spotify is owned >30% by record labels, so your point is an important one!

An interesting thing happened when I bought 1989: I listened to it. Repeatedly. And I think that’s partly because I bought it instead of streamed it. Paying for it created connection that made me a bigger fan.

I use Spotify like crazy, and I hadn't bought an album in maybe a year. I listen to lots new music, almost none of which falls under the header mainstream pop. But most of this music gets a couple listens and I move on.

Maybe it's just because subconsciously I feel like I want to get my money's worth, but this Taylor album has been on regular rotation. And I definitely wasn't a fan before. She’s become a fairly big deal with my peer group (women in their twenties in New York), but I wasn’t taking part in the love. Now I am, and I think it’s partly because just a little bit more was asked of me.

If Spotify can provide the revenue that matches traditional means then I don't think Swift is likely to leave. Make the model more viable than the existing model and you won't have people leave it.

If people are going to pirate anyways then she'll be back, but it seems like she made a pretty smart move to me. Maybe it won't work for everyone, but I don't think she was telling everyone to leave Spotify.

I think Spotify provides more per listener over a lifetime than any other medium. The problem is that small labels and artists don't get anything of that. It's the big four labels that gets almost all of it. That's the only explanation for how Spotify pays out so much, yet artists receive so little.

>I think Spotify provides more per listener over a lifetime than any other medium.

More what? Revenue?

Only 3 majors left, EMI has been acquired by Universal and Warner. Also the problem is in the payout from the labels to the artists signed to them.

She was getting $6 million a year.

She wasn't.

> At our current size, payouts for a top artist like Taylor Swift (before she pulled her catalog) are on track to exceed $6 million a year, and that’s only growing – we expect that number to double again in a year.

https://news.spotify.com/us/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-countin...

Is there an overview on how Spotify distributes the money? In my opinion when I'm listening to one single song a month then the artist (incl. label/writers/..) should get at least 60-70% of this $10 (paid subscription). This would make it a good deal for smaller bands too because they would get the full amount if their album is the only thing I'm listening too. But it seems the current mode is that even if I'm listening to one single song a month the payout is as little as $0.006/stream.

I think Swift withdrew her music from Spotify simply because she can extract more money from sales this year. New albums stimulate back-catalogue sales like nothing else. When she feels like she won't have a new album to stimulate her sales, she'll put her songs back with the streaming services and they will be happy to stream them again.

That's exactly right. Some artists can do this, but most cannot. She is doing the right thing from a business perspective. It makes no sense for her to stay on Spotify with her clout and the demand for her music. This is pretty straightforward.

A couple of points:

1. Don't care who TS is. If she was on Spotify, I'd give her a whirl - but since she's not, just not sufficiently bothered.

2. I think she (or her handlers - whoever makes the decision) make a valid point - artists should be able to pick whether they appear on the Spotify free version.

3. Lastly - all the talk about 'artist pay per play' is misdirected, as far as Spotify is concerned.

The only metric that matters is what % of revenue they pay out to the rights-holders. The number now is 70% - ie they keep 30% of total revenue for themselves and give 70% to the label (who is then free to pay the artist as per their agreement).

We can discuss whether 70% is a fair number (I personally have no idea). But talking about anything else is missing the point - since it ends up being a discussion about split between the label/artist/producers/etc - which Spotify has nothing to do with.

OT, but why people in this page often refer to Taylor Swift as "Taylor"[0][1][2][3][4]?

I have never noticed this sort of first name usage before.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8592523 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8592325 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8592395 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8592393 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8592276

Part of the image she sells is the "girl next door"/"normal girl just like me" thing, so that probably leads to her fans thinking of her on a first name basis. It's very likely beneficial to her that people do.

I'm skeptical about that in a lot of cases. For example, someone once pointed out that people called Spike Lee "Spike" a lot, where they never referred to Kubrick as "Stanley" or Scorsese as "Marty", and that there was likely a very subtle issue of respect there. That's probably accurate, and "Lee" is probably the more thoughtful choice there. But Lee, Kubrick, Scorsese, etc are selling an image of authority. Well, they aren't doing it themselves consciously, at least no more than any other director does as a matter of necessity. In any case, it's part of how directors are thought of, and Lee deserves that same kind of respect.

Taylor Swift, though, is selling something different.

Lee is a much more common name than Kubrick or Scorsese. Spike stands out more. If I say Kubrick, there is only one (or possibly zero, if you don't know his films) person who comes to mind. If I say Lee, well you probably know someone personally who has the first or last name of Lee, or possibly Li, or you might even hear, with your own ears, "did you see that new [Jet] Li movie?" when I mean "did you see that new [Spike] Lee movie?"

In places where it's common to call people by their last name (military, sports, etc), they don't do it out of respect, they do it because last names tend to be more unique than first names.

To be clear, this was in the context of discussing Lee's films. There was no ambiguity.

Cher. Madonna. Bono. Kobe. Kareem. LeBron.

It's been around for a long time. When someone reaches the stratosphere of celebrity, they can go first-name-only. Arguably, Taylor Swift is there.

(Though in fairness, I've never seen this applied to Taylor Swift before the comments on this article.)

I think music as an industry is going through a little bit of a transformation. With an increasing breadth of selection, and a stagnating amount of money being spent on music and entertainment (relatively speaking), money is going to be spread around a little more.

The superstar artists aren't ever going to go away, but they are going to be fewer of them, and they aren't going to be as big. The sad part about this is that the little guys, the "middle class musicians" are going to struggle to do it professionally.

Is this that surprising though? There are plenty of very very talented musicians out there who DON'T make enough to go pro. Those who do are more lucky than good, and this shift will both enable more people to gain an audience, and prevent more people from making enough to live off it.

Music is not a product, it is culture. For a time there was a distribution problem that allowed it to be equated with the physical means of distribution, and that was a product. That period has past, and the sooner artists realize this the sooner they will stop looking foolish and anachronistic.

On the other hand, Spotify is a service for finding and enjoying music. People will pay for a good service and this is why there is a business model here and a potential revenue stream for artists. It isn't the entire future of ways to make money from music, but it is one of the best upcoming models.

I heard an analyst say that Swift could be one of the last who is able to release a platinum album.

The thinking is that the people who buy actual full albums are going the way of the Dodo. It'll be harder and harder to sidestep these "alternative" distribution/streaming channels.

Edit: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2014/10/30/...

Big record companies support spotify because they have been given billions worth of equity in it.

Artists have been given no equity in spotify. They should pull their music and move to another platform offering ownership.

As a musician, this is a topic that hits close to home. The fact of the matter is that Spotify is making boatloads of cash off the works of artists, and they are not paying out enough to those artists.

Straight from the spotify website [1], they say the average revenue from a stream to a rights holder is between $0.006 and $0.0084. The poverty line is $23,283. That means an artist needs 3,326,142 plays in a year to just hit that line. That's not sustainable for the vast majority of artists.

[1] http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#wait-i-thou...

Spotify already pays 70% of their revenue in royalties to record labels. What do you think would be fair? 90%?

Spotify just moves bits from point A to point B. They don't even help get the music created the way the studios do (by providing the equipment). And technology makes moving bits very cheap indeed. So why isn't 90% reasonable? Or 95%?

Servers, storage and bandwidth do indeed have costs. The labor involved to run this infrastructure has a cost. The existence of Spotify fills a demand by artists' listeners. That's a lot of value. Are you suggesting that the value provided in meeting customer demand is worth "nearly zero"?

The studios have all the opportunity to make their own streaming service. What Spotify provides is customers, something the labels have not had for a long time now. Spotify is able to make people pay for music again, and that's worth something.

That's an entirely irrelevant argument, although it suits spotify as it makes them sound generous - they only take 30%, they're such saints!

What they should do is stop loss leading their service off the back of cheap valley money and charge more. It's simple, but they refuse to, because like most other valley companies, they're unsustainable if they don't scale.

How many ears hear a standard radio "play"? And how many ears hear a Spotify streaming "play"? Which set pays you, the artist, more per ear?

This would be assuming that you would do literally nothing else with your music except put it on Spotify. I would imagine that if you really wanted to make music your career, you might explore some other ways to monetize.

Spotify may be one big experiment to her, but to me, the music industry itself is a giant insulting failure to anybody not in the top 1% of artists. Thus, 6StringMercenary music is on Spotify, because 6StringMercenary cares more about art than money. 6StringMercenary also genuinely knows the value of money, works 40 hours a week just to be able to have the PRIVILEGE to be a musician, and therefore thinks Taylor Swift hasn't ever had a real job and should get off the diamond encrusted 38 story tall barn full of horses she's shouting from.

Oopsies. You just claimed that Taylor Swift hasn't ever had a "real job". Taylor's job looks way different than yours or mine, but I'd guarantee you that that girl works, and works hard.

Just because she's rich and famous doesn't mean she isn't working.

She probably works harder than any of us here. People vastly underestimate the pressures that surround superstardom and maintaining that level.

Exactly.

Also, she's stayed pretty normal. I say this without sarcasm: it appears hard to stay "normal" as a young, up-and-coming superstar.

I wouldn't call someone who's beaten a Billboard record for most albums that sold 1M+ copies on its first week up and coming anymore. :)

I agree! I meant to say that she already stayed normal through her up-and-coming phase, which has now passed.

Let's not overcompensate in the other direction.

Probably worth considering that some of the "hard work" by that point comes from just being dragged along by demand. Your success and then staff schedule shows and other opportunities, and you would end up fulfilling that busy schedule rather than creating it through dogged determination.

So the reality is somewhere in between: she's worked hard and continues to put in extreme hours, but there would be an advantage in having a schedule set for you.

Definitely unfair for GP to say she hasn't worked for it.

We completely differ on the definition of work then. She calls herself an artist. Art takes labor, but it's not work because you're creating something from nothing using a skill that is inherent to the person within.

If you call being "busy all the time" and doing interviews and other things work, okay fine. Realistically she has an army of people to handle affairs and things that I couldn't dream of doing. Why?

Because of stuff like this:

"according to Music Ally, the first single from that album, ‘Shake It Off’, was likely generating in the region of $84,000 a week from Spotify plays globally at the point it was removed."

$84,000 PER WEEK buys a lot of help. It's needed at that level, I get that...but it also only happens due to being part of a system that exists solely to feed itself.

Just because she's rich and famous doesn't mean she really works.

"Just because she's rich and famous doesn't mean she really works."

That's absolutely true, but you seem to think it means that she necessarily doesn't work. Also she mostly seems to do interviews when she's promoting a song or album that's finished already.

> Realistically she has an army of people to handle affairs and things that I couldn't dream of doing.

Again, I think you are falling into the trap of defining "work" globally by what you know locally. Just because she's not having to, say, schedule her own meetings, doesn't preclude her from working.

> We completely differ on the definition of work then.

Undoubtedly we do. Show two people on the internet a word, get three definitions.

> Art takes labor, but it's not work because you're creating something from nothing using a skill that is inherent to the person within.

I'm a programmer, and I meet the above criteria, yet I still feel like I'm working. But again, our definition or "work" is undoubtedly different.

> $84,000 PER WEEK buys a lot of help. It's needed at that level, I get that...but it also only happens due to being part of a system that exists solely to feed itself.

Not sure what this has to do with work.

I think in the end you're more worried about the purity of the "art" or something like that. I have nothing to say about that, because I don't consider myself an artist. Maybe she's a sell out, maybe she's not. I don't know. I don't care honestly. She's a genius in my book, and a hard freakin worker to have built what she has.

Why does 6StringMercenary speak in the third person?

It's an art thing.

It's a George Costanza thing.

As an underprivileged non-plutocratic artist, could you elaborate on the experience you've had with Spotify?

I'd like to hear from you because you are apparently the only contributor to this thread who has any subjective experience with Spotify's platform, and therefore the only person so far with anything of actual relevance to say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com