this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1483 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not this time.

By adding audiobooks into Spotify’s premium tier, the streaming service now claims it qualifies to pay a discounted “bundle” rate to songwriters for premium streams, given Spotify now has to pay licensing for both books and music from the same price tag — which will only be a dollar higher than when music was the only premium offering. Additionally, Spotify will reclassify its duo and family subscription plans as bundles as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 86 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (13 children)

It's not really just Spotify. I'm a hobbyist music producer. I uploaded my entire catalog through Distrokid about two years ago. Distrokid serves just about every streaming service. It costs $20 a year for the most basic package. I've got ~8 million listens according to Distrokid, and that nets me about $40 US. So, I made my money back. Not bad for 20 years of work. Haha!

I don't really care about the numbers, like I said, I'm a hobbyist. I make music because I enjoy making music. It would never be my career unless I dropped everything and struck out touring trying to make it in an industry that traditionally chews up and spits out hopefuls. I'm not exactly the age or attractiveness that most people expect in a touring musician, either.

[–] UsernameIsTooLon@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I'm in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).

But regardless, I think there is an element of selling your soul to Hollywood to really make it big, and I just don't have that kind of commitment at this point in my life. I like relaxing and anonymity.

[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I’m in a similar boat, but I never feel fully satisfied to release a song (probably cuz I am a hobbyist and I suck lol).

There's never a better time to put yourself out there! I resisted it for twenty years. My most "successful" release is one of my least polished tracks. I recorded it just out of university on a Pentium with a stolen microphone, pirated software, a freebie guitar, and a ZOOM 505. It's got 4 million listens and is responsible for half my income. By comparison, I've released stuff that I think sounds like it was professionally recorded in a studio that no one listens to.

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's funny like that, isn't it?

You catch lightning in a bottle in 5 minutes using Reaper, then spend 100x the time on another song that just vanishes.

Peaches most popular song was a tape recording off the sound desk in a German bar.

[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

Yep.

Another one of my most popular tracks is an atonal hour-and-twenty-minutes of cubic spline curves, granular synthesis, and other assorted noises I programmed in Csound.

load more comments (9 replies)