• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I’m not saying that’s wrong, because I don’t have the information, but I have repeatedly read on different news articles that Spotify pays peanuts: way less than that to big artists. I will have to check for updated and reliable sources.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 day ago

      They don’t pay as well as Apple and Tidal but they pay much better than YouTube

      When you’re indy you don’t make money from streaming. When you’re actually popular you do, but the record company gets it. It’s like when hard partying rockstars used to all go broke. It’s because they made millions but the corporations took it all and made them pay back the recording and partying costs out of their meager earnings. Then if the band was bust the company would write off the expenses as a loss while still collecting from the artists’ share.

      For Taylor Swift’s 1999 album, there was an article that showed Spotify had paid millions to the record company and Swift got about $200. That’s why she’s re-recording everything as “Taylor’s version.” So she can get the revenue.

      The singer of Cracker showed his earnings from streaming the song Low one month and TouTube had way more views than any streamer and had paid pennies. Seriously it was like .32.

      My last check from streaming was $12 and that was only split two ways.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 day ago

      Others might pay more, but the point is, that Spotify pays so much more than what ends up with the artists.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 day ago

        Thank you, I didn’t know that. I know that record labels have been screwing artists for decades… but I didn’t know that Spotify was actually paying good money for the listens, it just doesn’t reach the artist.