Music is subjective claiming that a song below 1000 streams is a bad song or that song that had no value for most people or thst people are just not aware of do not deserve to be payed ia ridiculous

Also the idea that artists should make music only for fun is ridiculous too.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I didnt claim it was a bad song. Do you thinking paying people to upload music to Spotify regardless of view count would somehow increase the quality of music? It would have the opposite affect attracting unserious musicians to the platform which would directly complete in recommendation algorithms with people who actually try to make music.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I didnt claim it was a bad song. Do you thinking paying people to upload music to Spotify regardless of view count would somehow increase the quality of music?

Yes.

It would have the opposite affect attracting unserious musicians to the platform which would directly complete in recommendation algorithms with people who actually try to make music.

Who are you to say who is the serious artists and who isn't. The recommendation algorithms push people to copy each other killing innovation and artistic control . Demonetize songs to pay bigger artists including the biggest artists in the industry is completely fair . Yo should worry more about how loose Spotify is with AI generated music to hurt small artists even more.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If they are serious they'll break 1000 streams. Paying artists that people listen is more fair than paying artists no one listens to yes.

Also Spotify pays so low per stream I doubt 1000 streams even covers the transaction fee.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You shouble be ashamed of minimizing small artists efforts. You don't know ish about how hard the industry is. As a super fan of music I have build connection with small local artists failing to have regular over 1000 streams tracks let alone 1000 per years. They do everything right like in real life networking, participating in competitions, asking advices and retroaction from better profesionals.

You are no different than people who say anybody who is poor is because he is lazy and not serious while defending billionaires

It doesn't matter how small the money is for 1000 streams. Any artist should still get money from streams and not stealing that money to give them to mainstream artists.

Instead of shaming small artists you should adress spotify being loose about blocking ai generated music, giving big artists right to use AI and giving advances to major label and if the revenus are less than the advance the label still keep the difference

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You realise we're arguing over less than $4(before transaction fees and tax) per year.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes. If you go to a supermarket missing 1 cent you will be rejected from buying all what you planned to buy.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not equivalent. Plus there is plenty of shops that dont care of you're a bit short a cent or two is nothing. Ive gone to shops and forgotten my card and walked away with $20 of food and i just pay them next time I'm in.

If you're a cent short just go talk to the checkout lady and she'll sort it out.

$4 over a year is a rounding error.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It is comparable you can't minimize small amount of money. When someone stream an artist he should get compensated even if it is a very small amount of money and not to be given to rich artists like Drake

If you're a cent short just go talk to the checkout lady and she'll sort it out.

It is very rare even in small businesses. They have no obligation to accept.

$4 over a year is a rounding error.

4$ a year is for dollars a year that should belong to the artists that generate it

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They are compensated for the value they create. If their music cant break 1000 streams in a year its creating no value for spotify. This is an agreement they are fully aware of and they choose to still put their music on spotify. Spotify offers a ton of value to these artists and only gets returns on that investment if the artist actually makes good music.

When we look at who is winning/losing for an artist making music that cant break 1000 streams its spotify losing. They have unpopular unwanted music taking up space and shitting up their recomended algo. Everytime they show that music to someone its a risk that the user has a bad experience. But the artist is still given the chance and to the artist thats extremely valuable far more valuable than a few cents.

How do you feel about adblock and piracy? I'd argue that we dont have to compensate people for every little thing and i'd use that as an example.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You just a terrible person shitting on small artists and defending major labels. The algorithms do not push those artists so your argument is trash and factually wrong.

Spotify allowed billions of fraudulent, bot-driven streams to inflate Drake visibility. You have no problem with that you just have problem with small artists that many of them make quality music. I do not wish music I hate to be demonetized because I believe in fairness between artists

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 0 points 1 day ago

I get new artists recommended to me all the time. Every one of my discover weekly playlists has a song from someone with under 5k listeners.

You are obviously trolling since there is not way you could know I'm "factual wrong" since neither of us have facts on the Spotify algo and you clearly have no idea how the world works.

Maybe your friend who is a "small artist" should leave Spotify and return once they have listeners or make music people enjoy.