Thread by @poedavid

Spotify’s disastrous “dance like nobody’s paying” ad campaign has now been demolished in the national press.
Here, @patrickmcguire suggests Spotify is trying to divide listeners and musicmakers. variety.com/2019/biz/news/…

Don’t let ‘em get away with it.

THREAD:

Ever heard that song “Put another nickel in / In the Nickelodeon”? It’s from 1950 (Weiss & Baum)

Everyone loves streaming. But more than half a century later, most streaming services contend that a song isn’t worth a penny.

I disagree. [1/20]
#IRespectMusic

A song isn’t really a song until someone listens to it. So I‘d never fault any musicmaker for utilizing all available platforms. But listeners shld be able to listen to streaming music w/o having to compromise their scruples, or that of their favorite bands. #IRespectMusic [2/20]

Despite a lack of transparency, here is the most credible summary I’ve found on what each streaming service pays, which may impact where Spotify listeners choose to put their dough-re-mi:
thetrichordist.com/2019/01/29/201… [3/20]

At ~.003/stream, Spotify pays little but has the greatest market share; at ~.0002/stream, Google/YouTube is even worse.
Very different companies. Their commonality: free music, which has made them rich at the expense of musicmakers.
Sucks!
[4/20]

To make US minimum wage, an artist on Spotify would need 380,000 streams. To make the same salary as the avg. Spotify employee, a songwriter would need 288 million streams. [5/20]
#IRespectMusic

https://twitter.com/theblakemorgan/status/1148619724139483136?s=21

youredm.com/2016/05/27/288…

For reference, the statutory rate for a song on a CD or download is 9.1 cents — 4.1 cents more than ye olde Nickelodeon of the 1950s.
Clearly, Streaming has replaced CDs & DLs. Money is being made, but more than ever, it’s not going to those who make the songs. Fuck that. [6/20]

Spotify’s ongoing free tier = the vast majority of its users. By offering free access, it artificially alters the streaming market and disallows competition amongst streaming companies. As musicians have learned the hard way, you can’t compete with free. rollingstone.com/music/music-ne…!

Spotify likes to say it’s artist-friendly, a tool for music discovery.

Founded by a former pirate, Spotify is guilty of chronic copyright infringement — a corporate ethos built on theft. forbes.com/sites/legalent… [8/20]

There’s additional shadiness here: allegations of gender discrimination and equal pay violation, expensive offices, exec bonuses, corporate lobbyists, a dicey DPO & of course, the “fake artist” scandal. theguardian.com/technology/201… [9/20]

After its ongoing lobbying campaign against artist rights failed & the (unanimous) passage of the Music Modernization Act in Congress last year, Spotify reneged on agreements it made to increase artist pay, a move that was publicly rebuked by its own “secret geniuses.”
[9/20]

That’s here: spin.com/2019/04/nile-r…

Spotify was joined by Amazon, Google, & Pandora in “suing songwriters.” Apple Music was the only major streaming service that did not challenge the new royalty (44% more, which means 0.004 instead of 0.003, which is still bullshit) musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-and-am…
[10/20]

This may be because Apple recognizes that music helped save its ass from financial ruin 20 years ago. Math not my strong suit, but numbers indicate music (via the iPod, a now-obsolete door stop) generated nearly half of Apple’s accumulated wealth. nytimes.com/2018/08/02/tec…
[11/20]

Apple Music’s intent to increase artist pay to a penny per side is its best yet, but now long overdue: shame, bc a $trillion company could afford to redistribute some wealth & if offered a fair alternative, most would run screaming from the competition.
vox.com/2016/7/26/1228…

There are many more expert than me, some quoted in this thread. I’d rather be staring into space strumming guitar & writing a song than here discussing music and money.

But I’m concerned for the next generation of artists, especially the musical innovators. Here’s why:
[13/20]

There used to exist a sort of musical middle class. Artists in all mediums expected financial struggle but, be it a record deal or selling CDs at a gig in order to make the next town, musicians of quality could see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Light’s out. [14/20]

Bands’ streaming access helps build an audience, which is awesome. But sustaining a career is still cost-prohibitive for many.

Thus the Top 40 is full of the children of the affluent.

Not children of millionaires: Stevie. Dylan. John & Paul. Aretha. #IRespectMusic
[15/20]

The optimistic, 1990s-era “monetize the back end” argument: bands on the road can make up $ lost to streaming by selling merch.

I tour, too. I wish the best to every band who does so.

But not every musician can travel ... or got into music to sell a fuckin hat. [16/20]

Another common sense rebuttal to “shut up & tour:” $ FROM LIVE SHOWS WAS NEVER MEANT TO REPLACE THAT OF MUSIC SALES — & both cost something.

Gas costs what gas costs.
Mics cost what mics cost.
Streaming doesn’t pay what music costs.
[17/20]

Sorry to yell, above. Just sick of this BS that to make up for streaming losses all recording artists (esp. senior citizens) should tour forever. Or the assumption they are all rolling in $! Tell that to the punk rock drummer, alto player, the cellist, the songwriter.
[18/20]

Note: You can’t even buy a new car or laptop that plays a CD. Streaming has effectively replaced physical sales.
So if streaming is to be the primary method of music distribution — if not the only one — then pay artists fairly.

Without musicmakers, Spotify has nothing.
[19/20]

When Spotify says “dance like nobody’s paying,” its bc they don’t.

Given support from listeners & lawmakers, this era of economic injustice via streaming may one day be a footnote.

Now, listeners must demand fair pay for musicians they claim to love.

#IRespectMusic

[20/20]