Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ezearis
Also, 110 USD is little money, but this is in only two months (January to March), and only one song! Other thing to keep in mind is that I play in Spotify a lot of records I already own or have on my phone, just to use the service and contribute, so I'm even "paying" for something I shouldn't have to, as I already bought.
Streaming is great, helps people to have the music they want where they want, it reduced piracy to almost zero in some countries, helped to make some artist known, helps with the charts, and it even gives some revenues. They need to embrace it, is the best massive way to promote your music available.
|
What absolute rubbish! Creatives in every field ultimately always get shafted. Saying $110 is fair remittance for a few months worth of streams for one song is a joke. The track is one of the biggest hits of the 80s and only rakes in $110 for it's creators?!? You couldn't live off that so how do the tens/hundreds of thousands of lesser known artists who don't have a catalogue of huge anthems to their names get anything out of this other than bent over? It might be useful for a handful who aren't well known and suddenly get 'found' but most don't fall into this category and never will.
People are so quick to claim that the 'exposure' is great and will have knock on effects for their paid sales but again, in most instances, they simply don't. The 'exposure' bullshit is plastered everywhere when somebody wants something for nothing, and it's about time artists of every genre start putting their foot down and demanding fair value for their product that everyone is so quick to undermine.