> "
They put all the streams in one pool and then split from there. Popular artists get almost all of it."
Like they should, mostly because they drive Spotify subscriptions. It's fair because there is a strong correlation between popularity and work, coupled with talent.
> When you spend $10 or whatever on streaming, you'd expect $7 to be split between the artists you listen to, but it's not.
Even if they'd distribute your subscription to your favorite artists, the total revenue for those artists and their share would still be mostly the same. Only in some degenerate scenarios, where you listen to only one obscure artist that nobody listens to, would those numbers be any different, and not by much.
> This is the way it is because big artists have big name labels.
Economies of scale probably apply. Like they should. ;-)
Talented artists can often sign with big labels. And isn't it wonderful that in 2023 you can publish your work, on Spotify and elsewhere, without having to sign with a big label?
Like they should, mostly because they drive Spotify subscriptions. It's fair because there is a strong correlation between popularity and work, coupled with talent.
> When you spend $10 or whatever on streaming, you'd expect $7 to be split between the artists you listen to, but it's not.
Even if they'd distribute your subscription to your favorite artists, the total revenue for those artists and their share would still be mostly the same. Only in some degenerate scenarios, where you listen to only one obscure artist that nobody listens to, would those numbers be any different, and not by much.
> This is the way it is because big artists have big name labels.
Economies of scale probably apply. Like they should. ;-)
Talented artists can often sign with big labels. And isn't it wonderful that in 2023 you can publish your work, on Spotify and elsewhere, without having to sign with a big label?