A Reader Asks, ‘Why Do You Hate Spotify So Much?’

You asked. I answered. This popped up in a thread about Vdio last week.




Image by Paulo Ordoveza(@flickr, licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic).

107 Responses

    • Jeff P

      Come on. Paul just fucking hates Spotify. We all know that. That’s what makes this site so funny.

      What on earth does Paul mean with “the attitude of iTunes”. Like they care for artists….. Like Paul cares for artists.. Het just cares for his advertising revenues.

      Digital Music News can hardly be consired a serious news site.

      • Visitor

        “What on earth does Paul mean with “the attitude of iTunes”. Like they care for artists”

        Huh? πŸ™‚

        Last time I checked, iTunes was the only company on the planet that cared about artists.

        When you sell a song, they pay you 70%!

        How’s that not caring?

        • Jeff P

          But what if there is a label involved? Does the artists still get 70 cent? Isn’t that exactly the same as with Spotify?

          • EJah

            No it is not the same thing at all. Regardless of any label’s deal with their artists iTunes pays out at least $.70 per track, Spotify pays a fraction of a penny for thousands of streams on that same track. How many times will the iTunes user actually play that track? Not nearly as many times as Spotify already has at a fraction of a fraction of the return.

          • HansH

            Not quite. Spotify pays $.005 per stream so 140 stream equals an iTunes sale. Mind that every listen over 30 seconds counts as a full stream so brings in $.005.

            Also take in mind that the world has more listeners than buyers. Streaming may well become a meaningfull source of income for artists. It is still too early to tell.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            I call B.S. on your information.

            Free streaming outnumbers downloads.

            Last I checked a free Spotify stream paid an indie artist .001

            Btw, I don’t supply my music to Spotify.

          • HansH

            I run an Indie label and have dozens of statements to prove that the $.005 is correct.

            Do more research before calling B.S. Yves.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            More B.S.

            You are quoting the average between the premium and freemium streams.

            Freemium stream is roughly .001, Premium stream is roughly .009

            Free streamers outnumbers buyers. Premium streamers are nowhere near the amount of buyers, globally.

          • HansH

            Dead wrong again Yves. I will gladly send you my statements to back up my claim.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            Again, more B.S.

            I’m fully aware of Spotify’s second/mid tier subscription, which is a hybrid of the freemium(ad-supported) and premium(monthly fee) models and pays indie artists roughly .005

            Any information from you is mostly unreliable. Are you still nursing your pro-Spotify blog site and any other direct links you may have with Spotify?

          • visitor

            Seriously Yves? Do you think people are chomping at the bit to listen to your album, The Chorus Man? Not to get too personal, but I’ve seen far too many of your idiotic comments on here so I figured I’d check your music out.

            You have two albums on iTunes, NEITHER OF THEM HAVE ANY REVIEWS! I can listen to 1:30 of any of your tracks on iTunes, which is painful enough, and then decide not to buy. If you were on Spotify, you’d at least get paid for :30 of listening before someone decided they didn’t like it. Why do you think guarding your music so closely is going to get you anywhere?! Spend less time on your ridiculous comments and spend more time on making better music if you feel like you’re getting ripped off.

          • Visitor

            Unfortunately pretty much the only “musicians” that post here are posers with a megalomaniac complex. It’s depressing to investigate.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            Good luck with your research.

            You are still open to express yourself in a critical review on iTunes.

            Maybe you are waiting for a week or so to pass by before you do?

            megalomaniac? Yes of course. I daydream all the time I’m the second coming of Christ and expecting a call anytime now from the new Pope. (Pun)

          • Yves Villeneuve

            Btw, I don’t consider myself a guitar player or bass player even though I eventually manage to play these instruments on my albums.

            Vocally, I am neither trained nor did I sing prior to making the draft demos for my debut album. For each of my two albums, the vocals were recorded in one day and mostly in one take. I don’t consider myself a signer or a radio songwriter or a songwriter with extensive experience and knowledge.

            So if admitting to the above is called posing then I am guilty as charged and you can now feel better about yourself along with your major label peers with less insecurities to worry about. You will note, my music is deemed “The Simple Poetic Rock Sounds Of Yves Villeneuve”… Or is that also posing?

          • Koze

            That just sounds like someone is jealous of other people’s talent and skills. Get a job and a haircut.
            And good luck with leaving that hair studio without paying..

          • Visitor

            HAHAHA Yves, your website is killin me:

            Name is pronounced Eve Vilnuv (luv). I am somewhat an underground artist. Whatever information is out there about me, is real or made up.


          • Friend of Yves (Not)

            Yves, A poser, for people who spend their lifes refining their craft, Is someone trying to join a group without paying their dues. You are definitely a poser. As such you have no right to voice any opinions on behalf of actual musicians. please go away and take care of your cash register/ gas pump or whatever.

            Leave business discussions to the people who have to deal with reality

      • Visitor

        “But what if there is a label involved?”

        That has zero to do with iTunes.

        And Spotify is absolutely worthless for artists, whether labels are involved or not.

  1. Visitor

    “But what if there is a label involved?”
    That has zero to do with iTunes.
    And Spotify is absolutely worthless for artists, whether labels are involved or not.

  2. Visitor

    Let’s see how your opinion changes when they launch their radio service paying half the rate of Pandora. It will be the lowest payout of any internet radio service. Because Apple LOVES artists (and the money they bring.)

    • Visitor

      “Let’s see how your opinion changes when they launch their radio service paying half the rate of Pandora”
      Yes, let’s see. So far, they haven’t launched anything of the kind.
      I don’t know if Apple loves artists. I know they did, but it’s to early to say which way the wind blows after Jobs.

  3. HansH

    Unbiased? Why focus on Spotify? Is Rdio, Deezer, Rhapsody more transparant? Do they pay better?

    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      They are all smaller than Spotify, that’s why. That’s certainly the case for Rhapsody and Rdio, and yes, Deezer (which, it turns out, has a massive ‘zombie’ userbase according to the latest research). Spotify has the most paying subscribers worldwide (outside of somewhat related services like Sirius XM Radio and less related services like Netflix (less related, for now)).
      They also have some of the largest levels of financing, and one of the biggest profiles among consumers.
      Which means, as a major leader in the space, they set trends, often set negotiation standards, affect the most artists, reach the most consumers, and yes, get the most coverage. It’s simple.

      • Visitor

        By this logic, shouldn’t there be like 20x more articles critical of, or at least investigating Youtube than Spotify?

      • dubist

        I think Paul’s last comment is the real essence of this discussion. Years ago, the US broadcast industry decided not to pay performers for the use of their recordings. They said it was/is promotion to avoid paying fair compensation for the content upon which their business models are built. 90 years later the US is one 4 countries in the world that still hold onto this antiquated notion. I think Paul is being a vigilant watch dog for dangerous trends. I agree that a streaming model needs to get it’s legs in order to find out if its the preferred way to do business but Paul makes great points about how the investors are basically just in it for the cash much like the computer makers and ISPs that grew substantilly after Napster came online, leaving the creators in the dust. However these intellectual property issues reslove, assume they will also set the tone for how all intellectual property is traded in the future.

  4. Jeremy

    Informed criticism does not equal “hate.”
    The bigger issue is whether we, as thinking and feeling human beings, are ever allowed to criticize technology companies without being ridiculed (“hater,” “afraid of change,” “dinosaur,” etc.) by those who prefer not to think about minor inconveniences such as justice and long-term consequences.
    Given the direction so many larger tech companies have gone in terms of stomping on both the intellectual property rights of creators and the privacy rights of average citizens, it’s pretty great for them that they have simultaneously reduced our collective ability to have a civil and informed debate about their actions.

  5. Steveh

    I have a definite hatred for Spotify and it is based on one thing above all others:-
    The appalling arrogant attitude of Spotify’s asshole founder Daniel Ek. An arrogant attitude towards artists, songwriters and music creators in general.
    Listen carefully:- the only way Spotify’s numbers will eventually make sense is for Spotify to become massive. This is what they call “scale”.
    Now, if Spotify becomes massive – ie. achieves “scale” – in the major music markets like USA and UK (not in the minnow markets like Sweden), Spotify will become the most powerful entity in the music business, bar none.
    Now really – do you want this foul creature Ek to be like a kind of music business Rupert Murdoch to the power of 10?
    Well I, for one, do not.
    End of story.

      • steveh

        I’ll tell you why:-
        1. I’m honest about what I think and I’ve thought this since early 2009, when Spotify was launched here in the UK.
        2. I have a considerable professional knowlege about the subject.
        Please don’t feel sorry for me.
        The truly scary thing is the vision of Spotify as a massive music corporation, in a position of great power over digital music distribution.
        With Spotify’s appalling lack of accounting transparency, arrogant treatment of artists, and heinous use of PR and spin, I find this truly scary.
        And I trace this right back to the personality of their founder – Daniel Ek.
        He really does not give a shit about music creators.

        • visitor

          Let me guess. You run a label that is not doing too well and you blame Daniel Ek for this.
          That’s plain stupid. Sorry.

          • steveh

            1. You guess wrong.
            2. You seem to display the same anti-music creator mind-set that pollutes so much of the tech scene.

          • Visitor

            Wrong also. I love music! Where would I be without the ones who create music.
            But some of these creators have turned into whiners who complain that they cannot make a living out of music because of streaming services. First it was downloaders now it is streaming services. Come on stop this shit.
            Not everyone can make a living out of music. Live with it and find some other source of income. 98% of all people have to find some other work than their hobby to make a living. Myself included!
            Streaming is here to stay, make it work for you. If Ek does it wrong, start your own service and beat him to his own game.

          • Visitor

            They may deserve it but few do. Not just with musicians. How about painters and poets. Has been this way for ages. So stop complaining.

  6. visitor

    There did seem to be a good period where you were regularly acting totally ignorant of how services pay labels/distros and labels/distros pay artists based on their specific contracts. You know, when you were asking anyone and everyone connected to Spotify “How much does Spotify pay artists?” To which the answer is “Zero”, as Spotify pays labels. Same as the answer to “How much does iTunes pay artists?” Zero.

  7. Visitor

    “”How much does iTunes pay artists?” Zero.”
    Don’t be ridiculous. They pay me 70% via TuneCore.
    Which is awesome!
    Compare that to Spotify… πŸ™‚

      • Visitor

        “And again, iTunes pays you nothing. You said it yourself “via Tunecore””
        Like it matters…

        iTunes is one of the best things that happened to artists in a long time.
        Pirate Bay & Spotify are two of the worst.

        • Visitor

          iTunes also forced musicians to unbundle music for the first time and price fixed it largely at 99 cents (which is 80% less what a single cost pre-iTunes). But I guess you have to take what you can get, amiright?

          • Visitor

            I’m fairly sure at one point in Apple’s history, Steve Jobs (pbuh) could literarly shit a plate and call it the iPoop and people would line up for blocks just to get a whiff of it for $500.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            Artists, especially indie artists, are not complaining about unbundling music.
            I think the major label execs are in full for force in this thread.

    • Yves Villeneuve

      Spotify pays on average 70%.
      It actually pays major labels 75% whereas indies receive only 55%.
      There is a reason for lack of transperancy. I spelled it out for you above.

        • Yves Villeneuve

          I’ll give you a hint.
          Compare a Rhapsody USA stream to a Spotify USA stream. If the ratio is roughly 78.5%, then please see this ratio, 55%/70%.

          • Visitor

            And how about comparing the number of Rhapsody streams to the Spotify ones. It’s not about rates alone

          • Yves Villeneuve

            It’s about principles and not getting screwed by Ek, Parker, Bono, Bieber and the major labels.
            If Spotify subscribers want my music they can legally purchase it in iTunes, CD Import and MP3 formats and synch it to their Spotify App and music library. This is what the Spotify syncing function is intended for. I am anti-piracy (anti-theft of livelihood)
            Stop crying because my music is not available in stores/services with shady practices while controlled by the major labels and like-minded exploitative artists and past piracy advocates. A tiger never loses its stripes.

          • Visitor

            Look who’s crying… Not me.
            If your music is not on Spotify so be it. For me it’s not worth buying. Sorry, but that’s a matter of taste. Good luck Yves.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            Thank you for acknowledging it is my choice who I supply my music to with stated reasons.
            Yes, I fully understand individual music tastes. Consider yourself a member of the 47%. No problem for me of course, and best wishes to you as well.

          • Visitor

            “It actually pays major labels 75% whereas indies receive only 55%.”

            This is just factually wrong, but we should all know what to expect from Yves at this point.

          • Yves Villeneuve

            Unfortunately, you wouldn’t know a good accountant if you saw one.
            Major label / indie market share ratio is 3 or 75%/25%
            The average/normal wholesale rate is 70%.
            Major labels are always pushing for 70% + 5% = 75% behind the scenes because they believe they are the only game in town.
            Which means, after adjusting for market share, indies receive 70% – (3 x 5% = 15%) = 55%.

          • Visitor

            You seem to know me Yves. I’m impressed.
            Even more by all this inside information you same to have.

  8. Benjy

    As the former manager of an early Internet music store and a fan of DRM-free music, I have always felt that iTunes was a bit like the Walmart of the digital music-selling industry, at least in terms of their early days. Not so much in their payment structure to musicians and creators, but to other online stores. A major source of their early growth was the monopolization of product, boxing out smaller outlets by developing exclusive agreements with labels and other similar deals. It forced services like CD Baby to work overwhelmingly within the itunes framework. Some consider it to have been a real innovation in terms of the way the industry works, and to be fair I think it is. It’s just that itunes is credited far more than they should be considering they were largely responsible for shutting out the mom-and-pops (as much as they can be mom-and-pop in the digital age). There’s a difference between winning the game and not allowing others to play. I am interested in services like Pandora and Spotify in that they are run (or at least started by) new players who challenged some of the crappy ways things already work, though I’ll admit they’re not perfect. But to shun P & S and support iTunes seems a bit hypocritical to me.

  9. A-J Charron

    These are actual Spotify numbers from CD Baby. Don’t forget, like iTunes, Spotify requires you to go through a broker, leaving, as you can see, fractions of pennies for the artist. Rumblefish is even worse. So, Spotify? Never again. Unless you get a real hit, there is no way an artist can make a living through streaming and it feels like a ripoff. I’d rather people illegally download my album rather than stream it; neither is good, but Spotify uses the pretense that it helps artists when it’s just plain robbery.
    At any rate, streaming should only be used with crap music, because the quality is so incredibly low. Then again, people listen to this stuff through laptops and smartphones…

    • Vistor

      “Unless you get a real hit, there is no way an artist can make a living through streaming”
      I’m not sure why artists should be able to make a living from music if they can’t get ‘a real hit’.
      The terrible truth, however, is that nobody can make a living from Spotify (except Ek, of course).
      Not even when they do get a hit.
      And again, compare that to iTunes…

        • Visitor

          Not sure why you talk about streaming in general when I was talking about Spotify.
          And this artist you’re referring to does not make 20K a month. He made that amount one time only, and from various services — and one of these services was TDC Play which from time to time pays artists rather generous advances.
          Like I said:
          You can’t make a living from Spotify, unless you own the company.
          While thousands of artists are able to make a living from iTunes…

    • Visitor

      If I’n not mistaking teh statement shows that all your songs have been streamed once! Isn’t that where the real problem is?

  10. Jason Paul

    I’m both a music maker and a voracious consumer of music. I can understand both points of view. On this though, streaming is going to win out because its in sync with the way the entire digital world is moving. Cloud accessibility. We can shame people into buying iTunes instead of streaming via Spotify as long as they’re still ‘buying’ but eventually it’s just not going to make any sense. Admittedly, I don’t buy downloads. I stream music day and night (via Rdio as I actually dislike Spotify on purely UI/UX terms). As an artist who gets an inside look at those meager CD Baby returns I get it. It’s nothing. 3 iTunes sales is the equivalent of 400 people streaming those same songs. But like I said, you can’t sell consumers something they don’t want or need. Even myself, as a songwriter, I have no use for digital downloads clogging my laptop either. Streaming is the future. Right now it doesn’t look great for the fringe indie artist. I think Spotify should pay better than .007 per song too. I doubt they can afford it though. Here’s the bitter, unfair reality. No matter how bad the odds are stacked against us, we’re going to keep on writing and producing songs. We can’t stop. Even if we went on ‘strike’ there’s so much music out there no one would care. So it’s a fight…for something. I’m all for fairness, but we all need to be realistic here.
    (If anyone cares to know about my music, look up Japan Soul in your music app of choice πŸ™‚

    • JTVDigital

      I agree.
      Streaming is the way people want to consume music now, however it should be possible for Spotify to increase their payout rates.
      For example Deezer pays much more on streams, whereas they are a smaller company…
      JTV Digital | affordable digital music distribution

      • Visitor

        Deezer is also bundled with Orange if I recall. That would give them a large revenue source even if people don’t use it. If people don’t use it, the rate per play goes up.

  11. JTVDigital

    No. If there is a label the 70% go to the label (“label” here can be any kind of middle men like digital distributors, like our company)
    Then the share to the artist can vary depending on the label/distributor.
    For example we give back 90% to the artist, meaning they get 63% of the End Customer Price.
    iTunes, Spotify, Amazon…etc all work exactly the same, meaning the deals are 70/30, then it’s up to the labels/distributors to share their revenue with the artists.
    The only difference is that with streams (Spotify, Deezer) as an artist you get a % from 0.000 something, whereas with downloads (iTunes, Amazon) you get a % from 1.29 € (for a single track sale).
    This can make a difference…
    JTV Digital | affordable digital music distribution

    • steveh

      Steve Jobs gave respect to content creators, in as much as the iTunes 70% split is fair and really transparent.
      And to be fair also, Steve Jobs and Apple created the computer tools that most creators use to do their work. What has Ek ever created for artists to use?
      Spotify’s “70%” income split is murky and shockingly untransparent, and encased in multiple layers of non-disclosure agreements.
      When people complain to Ek of miserable artist income from Spotify he tells them, in so many words, to shut the fuck up, and be grateful for the crumbs they receive.
      Ek says that if/when Spotify becomes really “big” everything will be OK and there will be “loads of income” for artists, although he presents no specific figures.
      If Spotify becomes really big and Ek is still CEO he will have too much power. He does not display the right attitude to have this kind of responsibility.

        • steveh

          It appears that Wimp are offering 70% of NET income.
          Which in the case of iTunes is 70% of 70%.
          Not a good deal…

          • Guest

            And , it seems they are holding on to your music for four weeks (milking the streams) before they let you on any other services.
            Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

    • Yves Villeneuve

      Here is a first clue:
      Lucian Grainge or Doug Morris?
      Here is a second clue:
      He decided to compete against his mentoree after making him the newly installed successor of the major label he led for many years.
      Here is the third and final clue:
      In regards to iRadio, he will definitely decide to follow-the-pack with those already agreeing to this new iTunes venture.

  12. R.P

    Paul, thanks for your response. Super cool that I got a whole article!!! lol
    Is it possible to have you also take a very critical look at the M.T.A.’s financials, their very questionable rate increases, their incredibly opaque and non-transparent accounting structures, and the potentially very perverse interests of the crook owners too?
    Please, we need you here in NYC. :p [half joking and half serious.]

  13. Barbara

    @ Paul Resnikoff :
    Good analysis. Seen from France, we have Deezer – even worst. Have a check !

  14. Saumon Sauvage

    Have you yet (and if you haven’t, will you) laid out for readers the analysis you allude to in this statement? Maybe I’ve missed that article.

    “I’ve taken a very critical look at this company’s financials, their very questionable artist payout structures, their incredibly opaque and non-transparent accounting structures, and the potentially very perverse interests of the major stakeholders involved.”
    Fine, I know from experience they pay their vendors (us rights holders/musicians) a paltry sum. Then again, we have to agree to allow them access to our content. The listener, frankly, is the one who doesn’t really want to pay us what we consider our due and Spotify is intelligently capturing that audience, bundling our content and distributing it, much like Wal-Mart does with cheap goods produced at factories netting perhaps 2-3%.
    But, fundamentally, if the business model is suspect (not in its legality, but whether it is commercially viable), then you ought to detail how your analysis leads to the claim of “their incredibly opaque and non-transparent accounting structures.” Perhaps you’ve done this. But where is the link?
    And how is this company different, if it is, from many IT companies at this stage of development?

    • FarePlay

      Sure I can provide those scary numbers for you:
      And while I’m at it, here’s my 2 cents:
      While the argument can be made that inexpensive/free cloud based streaming services like Spotify can have an impact on piracy by attracting free file sharers to legitimate sites, which we think is a good thing, can it be profitable for the service providers and/or healthy for musicians, songwriters and the music industry?
      Can we severely impact ad revenue flowing to pirate sites and redirect that revenue to legitimate services and support their bottom line and increase payouts to artists?
      Is it too late to step back and regulate the internet so that creative content doesn’t fall by the wayside and become a lost art?
      Has anyone taken into consideration the investment required to insure that we have professionals dedicating their life to their craft and producing awesome, inspirational, world changing work?
      Ultimately, the internet is nothing without content. So you figure out who really drives the internet or gets someone interested in setting up a Spotify Account.
      It ain’t the bald guy.

      • Saumon Sauvage

        No, that’s not what I meant. The link is a discussion, but not in great detail. I mean a financial analysis of the company that anyone researching an investment in the company might do with a company’s balance sheet, SEC filings, and due diligence, etc. But, unless I am much mistake, that is simply not possible yet. Only investors, to whom confidentiality matters, would have anything close to verifiable data on operations. You might be right that Spotify is doomed — I have no clue myself — but I don’t think the case has been made on sufficient evidence. Netflix by mail was damned by all and sundry, but it’s still alive and kicking.

  15. For Paul - LOL

    Ready? Okay!
    Put your hands up in the air!
    Like you just don’t seem to care!
    Cause we’re the best around, and we show it!
    Yeah, yeah, you know it!
    GO PAUL!

  16. Adrian Brigham

    There is a very simple answer to this question. I’ve offered it many times in similar discussions, and always gotten the same result. For those users who love Spotify and think that the artists are just whining and trying to put down the service, I always ask them to put their money where their mouthes are. If they think the artists are wrong I want them to get out their checkbooks, write an artist a check with at least four zeros before the decimal point, and finance the artist’s next recording project. If they believe Spotify is such a great service they can get paid back by its royalties.

    The silence has always been deafening……

    • R.P.

      I really don’t mean to offend you, but this is the most idiotic point I have ever read here.

      Firstly, I never said, anywhere, that I think the artists are whining and trying to put the service down. I manage a successful rapper or two, aside from a few current grammy award winning engineers and song writers, so I will always be pro artist.
      Secondly, what you are asking those individuals that do LOVE Spotify and think the artists are just whining to do, is to fund a project as a label. NO label, and NO artist(s) should expect to be paid back on royalties solely from a streaming service. In fact, they can’t even expect to get paid back on royalties from terrestrial radio spins. It is a combination of revenue streams that essentially helps to cover the expenses on any music project, and, furthermore, to cut yourself off from one of those revenue streams is not very smart at all, financially speaking that is.
      Don’t be so emotional.
      Oh, and don’t feel so entitled to sh!t. Who the f are you to want anyone to get out their checkbooks???

      Do something.
      “Potential just means you ain’t done sh!t yet”. – J. Madden

  17. Jean R

    Understanding streaming is actually simple….
    Spotify does a deal with content holders (the major labels ONLY) and they pay them a large fee to have the rights to access their catalog. This fee is a corporate toll and does NOT go to artists. But when they calculate (for the press) how much they give back that fee is counted into the equation making it seem like a legit deal.
    The per stream fee has NEVER been actually been negoatiated by anyone at the talble, all aggreeing that the smaller the fee to the artist is the better for the label and Spotify.
    Understand that the labels are in the pop marketing business, not music anymore, catalog is simply a free revenue stream. Artists are irrelevant to them.

    • steveh

      You have your finger on a key issue here, sir.
      This crucial point is totally ignored by the Spotify supporting hyenas…

  18. CP

    Why couldn’t an artist only choose to use stores like i-Tunes or Amazon that PAY, and avoid Spotify-type stores that pay very little, and seemingly make SOME money from their work… AND…Can this be done INDEPENDENTLY, without signing up with a “TuneCore” or similar distributor?

    • Mojo Bone

      Many independent artists do just that, but I think in most or at least many cases, it’s a shortsighted strategy; if you’re not an established act, you need Spotify more than Spotify needs you, and the payout is therefore irrelevant. How so? Because it’s a lot easier (and hella less expensive) to get your music on Spotify and similar streaming sites than to get it on terrestrial radio, which as the majors are no doubt aware, still drives the most music sales. And no, Spotify does not deal directly with unrepresented artists, so far as I’m aware.

  19. lady miss kier ( deee-lite)

    itunes pays warners 70 % and warners is suppose to pay our band deee-lite 35 cents per download , but instead they pay us 5 cents per download. i-tunes is doing the right thing and my solo music will go directly to them and not thru a label and bring in 70% but spotify pays us nothing. that’s why artists don’t like spotify.

  20. JahkR

    I don’t know if this thread is still open, but I am an underground EDM Artist with a single on Spotify and iTunes with over 250K streams on Spotify. I have been paid only $0.001 per stream within a six month period. This release is not under any label, and I paid for the direct distribution myself. I’m not complaining because it’s still money, but where is this $0.006+ per stream coming from? Do you have to have a certain number of streams to qualify for that rate?

    Please check out my song “My Inspiration” by JahkR
    It’s a good listen, and I’m pretty sure you will enjoy. That song actually was signed to a record label, a trance remix will be published soon.

    Thank you all!



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *