dEbAtE mE, iAm fAcTs aNd lOgIc. Get outta here you Ben Shapiro wannabe, you're an apologist for shitty companies under the guise of that "facts and logic".
Like I said, my post history is open. If you can't prove your bullshit claim
anytime anyone points out how shitty companies are being you always rush in with your wobbling lip pretending to not cry as you say shit like this "don't be mean to the corporations". At least admit you're a shill.
than kindly fuck off. Crying about Ben Shapiro and complaining that I use facts and logic, which I guess is something you aren't used to, is a waste of my time.
Artists have been speaking out for years about how Spotify screws them over and pays the lowest rate but they have to have their music on there due to label contracts, etc.
"Artists" aka record labels have always complained about stores like Spotify and iTunes because they get a smaller cut.
Of course the problem they don't tell you is these companies sell a different product. ITunes sold most 1.99 singles, Spotify offers a single stream which is worth less than a full cent.
Companies have pushed for devaluing music as much as possible over the streaming generation, you can practically listen to whole albums on YouTube now via playlists generated on official channels by the record labels.
Can you use your brain for 5 seconds? Who devalued music McFly? Who decided that a song should be essentially worth a dollar? Who decided that whole albums should be downloaded online for free?
These changes weren't conjured out of mid-air. The consumer changed the market, and new companies reacted to it. These artists expect album level revenue, when that isn't what they are selling anymore.
It's hilarious seeing you cry over the "poor" artists. These are the same "artists" that tried to sue Napster, sued CD manufacturers for selling blank CD's, and sued Amazon for allowing you to stream music from your own cloud account.
Anytime Spotify has increased their prices haven't been for the benefit of artists, it's always been to line the pockets of Spotify or the record labels, remember how it was also Spotify who wanted artists to put out shorter songs (a staple of the old overly commercial radio days) stating that artists with songs under 2 and a half minutes were more likely to be included in their curated playlists.
The record labels own the music, obviously Spotify is going to work to meet their interests. Spotify pays over 9 billion in revenue, with a reported 0.00437 cent per individual stream.
But Spotify, and all the other services have always operated under the operandi that they are competing with piracy and other "free" music of the internet. Complaining about the rates that Spotify offer has always been dumb, because it's never taken into account the alternative is that you get
nothing.
And now they're here again stating that if an artists wants to remain in profit then they need to be constantly releasing music so they'll always appear on top on Spotify, etc, for "Interaction".
Of course Spotify wants shorter songs. They are, essentially a massive radio station. They function the same way, as a means to advertise artists, who make their real money on album sales, merchandise and concert tours.
Not on playing songs solely on the radio. Artists who release a lot of music tend to do better than artists who don't. Artists who put out a bunch of singles do better than artists who put a concept album with year long delays. That isn't Spotify's choosing that. That is, again the customers
www.thefader.com
