Spotify lets Artists upload music to the service a decade after launching

[AlTech]

It's been a decade since Spotify has launched and Spotify is finally letting Artists upload music to the service.

 

Traditionally artists were forced to upload music through music labels or record companies but now Spotify is allowing direct uploads from artists.

 

Quote

Spotify has launched a beta program allowing artists to upload their music to the platform directly.

Uploads were typically facilitated by major labels and third-party services, but the new feature lets music makers do it themselves. It's currently only available to a select group, but it is expected to eventually become available to everyone using the Spotify For Artists service after a period of testing. Eligible artists will be able to set a release date, access their tracks' statistics and demographic data, and see projected royalty earnings.

The Senior Product Lead for Spotify’s Creator Marketplace, Kene Anoliefo, told TechCrunch: "Artists receive 50 percent of net revenues from the songs they upload, and Spotify also accounts to publishers and collection societies for additional royalties related to the music composition."

 

This should help a lot more indepenant artists upload music to Spotify whilst increasing artist revenues.

 

Currently artists with music uploaded and managed by music labels or record companies earn less than 1 cent per song play. This could see a potentially over 10x improvement in revenue per song played for artists who no longer rely on record labels.

 

I'm glad Spotify has finally allowed this. The previous method of being forced to get into bed with record labels was convoluted and nasty. Most artists would probably describe it as being similar to prostitution but I really don't know.

 

Don't sell sex for money and don't become loan sharks or a mafia kingpin record label.

 

Source:

https://www.residentadvisor.net/news/42529

[TrigrH]

I wonder if Spotify takes a larger cut also?

[bleedblue]

So the people in Hollywood boulevard giving out their CD's will now give me links to their spotify account?

[AlTech]

Just now, TrigrH said:

I wonder if Spotify takes a larger cut also?

I believe they do. But so do artists so it's a win-win.

[TrigrH]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

I believe they do. But so do artists so it's a win-win.

Yeah looks like Spotify's cut was 30-40% now its 50%, hey they might turn a profit one day!

[PlayStation 2]

SoundCloud rappers just got a new platform

[AlTech]

Just now, TrigrH said:

Yeah looks like Spotify's cut was 30-40% now its 50%, hey they might turn a profit one day!

Previously it was exactly 30% iirc but now 50% for artist uploads.

 

Also, for some more percentages. Out of the 70% that right holders got in the past, only 10% or less were given to the artist. More often than not the actual % was closer to 5% or worse depending on contract.

[TrigrH]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Previously it was exactly 30% iirc but now 50% for artist uploads.

 

Also, for some more percentages. Out of the 70% that right holders got in the past, only 10% or less were given to the artist. More often than not the actual % was closer to 5% or worse depending on contract.

Not sure why spotify doesn't take a larger cut then, i bet they could get away with 60%.

 

Either way i wonder if this will create issues/conflict between artists and the record companies.

[AlTech]

4 minutes ago, TrigrH said:

Not sure why spotify doesn't take a larger cut then, i bet they could get away with 60%.

 

Either way i wonder if this will create issues/conflict between artists and the record companies.

Of course all these figures are for paying customers .

 

 

The free customers basically contribute negligible revenue to Spotify and Artists (relative to paid) which is sad because the Free userbase is probably around 80% of Spotify users. With free customers the artists and rights holders are basically handing out free music which is unsustainable.

[handymanshandle]

6 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

SoundCloud rappers just got a new platform

Yo check out my soundcloud spotify

[AlTech]

18 minutes ago, TrigrH said:

Either way i wonder if this will create issues/conflict between artists and the record companies.

Ultimately to become sustainable: Spotify has to convince more people to pay for premium; charge more for premium; or try to squeeze more money out of free users.

 

The problem with Spotify's model is $9.99 USD spread across every song you play in a month amounts to each play contributing 1-2 cents each at best. And offering Premium to students for 50% off isn't helping as that 50% is still spread equally across all the plays.

 

The way to pay artists sustainably would be to set a fixed amount per play and say like 5 cents per play or whatever and then charge users based on how much they use Spotify instead of this $9.99 monthly sub. Of course Spotify won't do that. Alternatively they could try charging $20/month for an Ultimate tier with 1.5Mbit/s FLAC audio like what Tidal is trying to do, But i doubt that would be popular and it might cause beef with current premium users.

[TrigrH]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Alternatively they could try charging $20/month for an Ultimate tier with 1.5Mbit/s FLAC audio like what Tidal is trying to do, But i doubt that would be popular and it might cause beef with current premium users.

If im not mistaken that will get hit with the same issue as the pono player did? (i think thats what it was called) Artists/labels insist on charging a premium for the higher quality audio.

[PlayStation 2]

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Ultimately to become sustainable: Spotify has to convince more people to pay for premium; charge more for premium; or try to squeeze more money out of free users.

 

The problem with Spotify's model is $9.99 USD spread across every song you play in a month amounts to each play contributing 1-2 cents each at best. And offering Premium to students for 50% off isn't helping as that 50% is still spread equally across all the plays.

 

The way to pay artists sustainably would be to set a fixed amount per play and say like 5 cents per play or whatever and then charge users based on how much they use Spotify instead of this $9.99 monthly sub. Of course Spotify won't do that. Alternatively they could try charging $20/month for an Ultimate tier with 1.5Mbit/s FLAC audio like what Tidal is trying to do, But i doubt that would be popular and it might cause beef with current premium users.

There's no way in hell Spotify could get away with charging $20 for a lossless tier; Tidal mainly gets away with it as that's a selling point of the platform.

Also, bitrate with lossless audio isn't really relevant; what matters more here is the sample rate and the sample size (which would probably be 16-bit 44100Hz for the majority of shit).

[vanished]

52 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

It's been a decade since Spotify has launched and Spotify is finally letting Artists upload music to the service.

uhh, what?

52 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Traditionally artists were forced to upload music through music labels or record companies but now Spotify is allowing direct uploads from artists.

oh.  OH

 

Wow, that's ridiculous... glad to see this has changed

[Arika]

42 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

SoundCloud rappers just got a new platform

this is what i was thinking too.....shit.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

SoundCloud rappers just got a new platform

Call me lil’DanXO VERT da 5’6”

[D13H4RD]

Here comes the SoundCloud rappers.

 

Dear freaking God...

[captain_to_fire]

Looks like I can finally launch my first album with @Crunchy Dragon as my ghostwriter. 

 

/jk

[Arika]

30 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Here comes the SoundCloud rappers.

 

Dear freaking God...

if there's some kind of approval system before it goes public on spotify, i feel sorry for the employees that have the vet the songs. So many people think they can sing and write songs. Emphasis on "think"

[D13H4RD]

14 minutes ago, Arika S said:

if there's some kind of approval system before it goes public on spotify, i feel sorry for the employees that have the vet the songs. So many people think they can sing and write songs. Emphasis on "think"

Just give me Moog, ODESZA, Eric Prydz and all the good trance guys like Markus Schulz and Andy Moor. 

[Taja]

What? A friend uploaded his music on spotify like 4 months ago, and I dont know how he did but there was no label or nothing included (he is just a regular guy and only made a song). Is this regional or what?

[kirashi]

22 minutes ago, Taja said:

What? A friend uploaded his music on spotify like 4 months ago, and I dont know how he did but there was no label or nothing included (he is just a regular guy and only made a song). Is this regional or what?

He would have used a service such as CDBaby.com or DistroKid - they're not exactly record labels, but same idea in a way. The new changes will eventually allow artists to bypass 3rd parties and upload tracks directly to Spotify, something that should have happened in the world of digital music over 15 years ago.

[Bananasplit_00]

Huh OK, well how about making Spotify less broken before you add more stuff? No? Kay then, guess we will stick with this broken pos forever then

[Trik'Stari]

Why do recording labels even exist anymore? As far as I can tell all they actually do is look for people to sue or extort money out of.

 

like when they send a lawyer into a bar or restaurant that happens to play the radio, claiming that the owner/proprietor has to pay licensing for the songs on the radio, which is entirely legally incorrect because the radio station already paid for that license to play the music publicly over the airwaves.

[Volbet]

57 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

like when they send a lawyer into a bar or restaurant that happens to play the radio, claiming that the owner/proprietor has to pay licensing for the songs on the radio, which is entirely legally incorrect because the radio station already paid for that license to play the music publicly over the airwaves.

That's not entirly true. 

The radio station has payed a license to broadcast the music, while bars, restaurants, nightclubs, supermarkets and other such establishments need to pay a license to publicly perform the music. 

Those two fees are applied to different rights and therefor needs to be payed seperatly. 

 

There are exeptions, though. If a bar only have a consumer-grade radio, for example, they don't can't have to pay for a performance license, as per the American Copyrights Act. 

The problem only arise when the establishment has a professional (or at least non-consumer) sound system. 

 

There are also issues pertaining to the size of the establishment and whether or not the broadcasted source is FFC licensed, but the main issue is the equipment the broadcast is played from.