They are providing infrastructure, hosting and a recommendation algorithms for access their 700million users. Thats a fair trade for someone who gets no streams.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, they aren't. Yes for hosting, but that's cheaper than the music itself if it's quality music and not AI slob. The algorithms are heavily influenced by popularity, which is kind of a trap for new artists. It's only perhaps a possibility for a very popular artist like Taylor Swift, to really access that amount of users. I get what you say, it's a for-profit, that's fine, but they are not helping new artists at all, from my POV, they don't get to brag about that.

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

Yes its weighted on popularity but that doesnt mean it never shows new music to people. By putting your songs on Spotify they will recommend your music to people and if thry like it they will show it to more people. If you're getting under 1000 streams in an entire year then no one likes your music. There is no other way to interpret that. No one likes your music, it holds no value to Spotify. The 1000 streams is just a fraud measure to try and weed out scammers because it should be easy to pass for a serious musician.

If you think Spotify provides no value dont upload music there its that simple.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, there are several other ways to interpret the 1000 streams number. One very plausible way is Spotify's not trying hard enough with new, unknown artists, as if they just want cheap money. I agree Spotify doesn't value new artists. I wouldn't upload music to that shit platform, there are multiple reasons why not to, but that's another discussion.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago

Can we be clear that we aren't talking about new artists. New artists will probably make the 1000 steam metric and get their $6 of revenue. Were talking about artists who cannot make 1000 views in a year after uploading for a years.