Spotify - Salaries at the streaming giant have increased 152% in five years.

Firstly, I'm not a musician so it's not something that affects me. However, after reading these startling statistics, I'm wondering where all this is going to lead in the end?

http://www.factmag.com/2016/05/29/average-annual-salary-for-spotify-employees-shows-the-new-music-industry-gap/

"Salaries at the streaming giant have increased 152% in five years.

I've read rumors that iTunes will cease music downloads in several years and go streaming exclusive with Apple Music to compete with Spotify. I really hope not, I like to actually back up my music, not just flit from playlist to playlist.

I doubt the ability to "buy" music (digital or otherwise) will cease - people will still crave "owning" something (whether that be a physical article or a digital file) and won't be content with just "renting" music.

Piracy will play a greater factor too for those who don't want to conform to the subscription-only models.

Then again, Apple could push this initiative, just like they did with digital music sales.

  On 6/3/2016 at 6:40 PM, Joyrex said:

I doubt the ability to "buy" music (digital or otherwise) will cease - people will still crave "owning" something (whether that be a physical article or a digital file) and won't be content with just "renting" music.

 

Piracy will play a greater factor too for those who don't want to conform to the subscription-only models.

 

Then again, Apple could push this initiative, just like they did with digital music sales.

I think people want, over all, to be able to listen to music whenever and wherever, and don't really care if the music is 'bought'/'owned' or 'rented'. That's my imo / experience

  On 6/3/2016 at 6:56 PM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

 

  On 6/3/2016 at 6:40 PM, Joyrex said:

I doubt the ability to "buy" music (digital or otherwise) will cease - people will still crave "owning" something (whether that be a physical article or a digital file) and won't be content with just "renting" music.

 

Piracy will play a greater factor too for those who don't want to conform to the subscription-only models.

 

Then again, Apple could push this initiative, just like they did with digital music sales.

 

I think people want, over all, to be able to listen to music whenever and wherever, and don't really care if the music is 'bought'/'owned' or 'rented'. That's my imo / experience

 

I'm a freak that wants to own it and in digital too - CDs vinyls tapes etc are just clutter to me

me too, but I'm talking about the general population, not IDM forum dwellers

  On 6/3/2016 at 6:56 PM, ThatSpanishGuy said:

 

  On 6/3/2016 at 6:40 PM, Joyrex said:

I doubt the ability to "buy" music (digital or otherwise) will cease - people will still crave "owning" something (whether that be a physical article or a digital file) and won't be content with just "renting" music.

 

Piracy will play a greater factor too for those who don't want to conform to the subscription-only models.

 

Then again, Apple could push this initiative, just like they did with digital music sales.

 

I think people want, over all, to be able to listen to music whenever and wherever, and don't really care if the music is 'bought'/'owned' or 'rented'. That's my imo / experience

 

Yes, of course - that's why streaming services are becoming more popular. But I would wager the vast majority of people don't PAY for streaming services, and instead utilize the free version. Why? Because it's free, and it's there. Now, if streaming (via a subscription) was ALL they had... I bet people would rather pay to own than just rent. I dunno. It will be interesting to see what the music industry is like in another 10 years.

Joyrex is right, I think. People don't want to pay for streaming. Spotify has been going since 2008 and has yet to make a profit. I bet only a small percentage of its customers are using the paid subscription. If I was a musician, I would not want people just hearing and enjoying it for free. That is no good for artists and no good for the economy.

  On 6/3/2016 at 8:33 PM, fumi said:

Joyrex is right, I think. People don't want to pay for streaming. Spotify has been going since 2008 and has yet to make a profit. I bet only a small percentage of its customers are using the paid subscription. If I was a musician, I would not want people just hearing and enjoying it for free. That is no good for artists and no good for the economy.

And right now with the current model, an artist has to stream a LOT just to make some semblance of what they would make from say sales from a digital download.

the usual issue i have with those "starving artists" kinda complaints is that no one has still defined what artists are supposed to earn. and whether paying for each single digital copy or a stream should reward the artist with additional profit.

All these tech companies seem to forget one thing: they need content in order to exist , be that books, music etc. If the content dried up, most of these silicon valley people would be out of jobs.

People were creating content for decades before the internet came along. The only thing that all these over-paid salary tech people have done is made the distribution better - and ultimately they are the only ones who have benefited.

I wonder how many artists can claim their career took off thanks to the internet?

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:01 PM, fumi said:

All these tech companies seem to forget one thing: they need content in order to exist , be that books, music etc. If the content dried up, most of these silicon valley people would be out of jobs.

 

People were creating content for decades before the internet came along. The only thing that all these over-paid salary tech people have done is made the distribution better - and ultimately they are the only ones who have benefited.

 

I wonder how many artists can claim their career took off thanks to the internet?

Dido LOL

I work down the street from one of Spotify’s offices. They have an insanely nice office that they renovated themselves, an open stage, drum kit, and instruments/PA system for employees to play around with, an extremely fancy stainless steel kitchen stocked with drinks and food, and are always having mexican food or other stuff delivered for parties.

It’s just startuppy bullshit. These guys are trying to soak up all the money in the world as fast as possible so they can look as impressive as possible for an IPO or acquisition. It’s gross when you consider how difficult most musicians have it w/r/t paying their bills.

By the way, I totally sent them a résumé anyway. Bet your ass I want some of those delivery tacos or whatever, they smell SO good sometimes

Great post right up until here:

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:01 PM, fumi said:

I wonder how many artists can claim their career took off thanks to the internet?

  On 6/5/2016 at 10:21 PM, sweepstakes said:

 

Great post right up until here:

 

  On 6/4/2016 at 4:01 PM, fumi said:

I wonder how many artists can claim their career took off thanks to the internet?

 

Personally, I like services like Spotify to search for music but when I like something I grab it as a FLAC or WAV or on CD if those formats aren't available. I totally agree with what Joyrex said - even if the majority of listeners were to ditch their libraries and go pure streaming, there will always be a large market for people who want to own their music in some way. Thankfully most of those services offer 16/48-41 or 24/96 files.

I never downloaded anything from the iTunes store as the files were 256 AAC (from what I remember), and instead I got it on CD as I could rip it 16/41. But now with services like Bandcamp, Bleep, HDTracks.com,etc. have done such an incredible job with their choice of file type. It not having DRM is just as important as well.

  On 6/4/2016 at 2:14 PM, eugene said:

the usual issue i have with those "starving artists" kinda complaints is that no one has still defined what artists are supposed to earn. and whether paying for each single digital copy or a stream should reward the artist with additional profit.

if not the artist then who should get that "additional profit"?

it's worth thinking about the model that existed previously. someone writes a song.. maybe it's a hit.. maybe not.. but they continue to own it and its rights. so when Tarantino comes calling and wants to license it for movie use he pays the rights holder (definitely not always the artist who created it) a fee.. sometimes.. depending on how popular the song was/is that fee can be quite substantial... sometimes a song being included in a movie or commercial can ignite or reignite an artist's career or sustain that artist through old age.

it's not as if every working musician has 2 sports cars in the garage and a beach house and all that.. so i think it's important that the artist keeps getting the profit from something he/she produced... if i buy it today or my kid buys it in 10 years.

there's no "maximum salary".. at least not in USA.. so why should musicians be special and get their earnings capped at a certain amount? i guess i have issue w/the idea of "extra" profit in this case. how do you quantify the cost of making the song? could be the artist's life work. blood sweat and tears and all that.. some artists do suffer for their work or do put in the hours to make the music.

just my take on it of course.

i've yet to give any streaming service a chance. i'd rather just plug in my ipod and play something. i have enough music on it that i can still be surprised.

also, i don't like being tied to wifi or data.. what happens when you're out of range of any network? where's my music apple!?!? oh. only available for streaming.. sigh.

  On 6/6/2016 at 4:47 AM, ignatius said:

also, i don't like being tied to wifi or data.. what happens when you're out of range of any network? where's my music apple!?!? oh. only available for streaming.. sigh.

this.

Just why stream? I don't understand the pros at all, if there are any. You own the music you purchased. You should have access to it anywhere. You should not have to pay for data etc to access the stuff that you bought that you own.

of course apple isn't helping by getting rid of their ipod classic. They're putting out lower capacity products now to get you to stream. fuck

Music suppliers and tech industry: $$$

End user needs: bottom of the food chain

Content makers: Screwed, like always and forever.

Honestly, I hope more and more people support Bandcamp, and that their values stay the same.

  On 6/6/2016 at 5:31 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 4:47 AM, ignatius said:

also, i don't like being tied to wifi or data.. what happens when you're out of range of any network? where's my music apple!?!? oh. only available for streaming.. sigh.

 

this.

 

Just why stream? I don't understand the pros at all, if there are any. You own the music you purchased. You should have access to it anywhere. You should not have to pay for data etc to access the stuff that you bought that you own

 

 

of course apple isn't helping by getting rid of their ipod classic. They're putting out lower capacity products now to get you to stream. fuck

 

yeah.. paying for data to access the stuff you paid for.. ugh.. it's another middle man in there to put his hand in yer pocket.

regarding ipod classic.. you can still grab them used on ebay for now.. but they're paving the way for niche manufacturers to put out something better. there's a company making highend device with small storage on board and slot for added storage of HUGE capacity. also Swinsian apparently works importing itunes libraries including playlists etc and can sync with ipods..

so the road is being paved.. i'll probably make that jump this year or next year.. but for now my 60gb ipod is still working.. fuck if i'll buy another device until i have to.

You can download all your stuff for offline listening on Spotify, you just have to sign in to validate your account every 30 days.

Spotify premium that is. The free version won't do that.

  On 6/6/2016 at 7:40 AM, ignatius said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 5:31 AM, StephenG said:

 

  On 6/6/2016 at 4:47 AM, ignatius said:

also, i don't like being tied to wifi or data.. what happens when you're out of range of any network? where's my music apple!?!? oh. only available for streaming.. sigh.

 

this.

 

Just why stream? I don't understand the pros at all, if there are any. You own the music you purchased. You should have access to it anywhere. You should not have to pay for data etc to access the stuff that you bought that you own

 

 

of course apple isn't helping by getting rid of their ipod classic. They're putting out lower capacity products now to get you to stream. fuck

 

 

regarding ipod classic.. you can still grab them used on ebay for now.. but they're paving the way for niche manufacturers to put out something better. there's a company making highend device with small storage on board and slot for added storage of HUGE capacity.

 

I ended up getting an ipod classic with 240gb SSD from ebay. All of my ipods I've owned, the hard drives fizzled out. So far, I've had this one for 2-3 years and no problems!

Saving stuff locally from Spotify or iCloud/Apple Music is way more flexible than preloading an iPod.

The current environment is pretty unfair to the average artist, even though there are plenty of avenues for exposure. I'm not saying people don't deserve adequate compensation for their original work, but they would be dumb to expect it. Having a primary source of income and either figuring out the live show thing (i.e not performing for free or fucking paying to do it like more and more people are) or just low-balling your tunes on Bandcamp seems to be the most sensible option. The latter is not such a bad place to hang.