Bandcamp is the way to go and Tidal if you really need streaming.
Tidal has decided to sunset it’s app, which means it’s basically on maintenance mode now. Somewhat off putting.
Its app on a specific platform? Or do you mean the entire service? Seems weird that they would sunset their only product.
They’ve been making deeeeeep cuts in order to make the company “more like a startup”, as per Jack Doresey’s comments.
Well that’s fucking dumb.
Did they? Couldn’t find an announcement on the fly.
They laid off 10% of their workforce last year, and like 20% of the remaining work force late this year with cuts to engineering expected. It is not in a healthy place, seemingly, and they cover a very small slither of the market.
Boy, that’s a bummer. Thanks for the information, I’ve missed that.
I jumped ship over to Quboz for this reason. I’ve been really happy with it
I’m concerned with switching to a small alternative which then becomes untenable or shutters within a year and then having to piss around again.
Never heard of them. They seem interesting, will definitely taka a look. Thanks for the hint!
I mean they paid Joe Rogan $100 million dollars so they have already wrecked their reputation.
Yeah, I switched to deezer then, haven’t had any trouble with it.
Ngl, I canceled them and haven’t gone back since. Don’t really miss it much, I try to use the same cost as my subscription to buy music every month on CD when I can.
I cancelled it the second I found out how easy it was to get it for free.
I still buy FLAC releases individually from artists I like, I just use Shittify for discovery. Fuck 'em.
I have recently discovered Qobuz (French company). You can purchase digital music. They aren’t cheap, but they have selection and hi-res music (sometimes 24 bit).
But good on you for the CDs, too!
I heard they pay artists a lot more. Need to double check.
Try bandcamp too. Almost all goes to the artist and you get FLACs.
I’ve used them plenty but…
They recently got acquired by a turd company and if I remember correctly, already issued a round of layoffs.
Don’t recall the details. Check.
I just want to remind people that you may still have a used CD store in your city, also 2nd hand stores for CDs. They tend to be quite cheap these days.
From the article:
"…journalist Liz Pelly has conducted an in-depth investigation, and published her findings in Harper’s—they are part of her forthcoming book Mood Machine: The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist.
…
"Now she writes:
‘What I uncovered was an elaborate internal program. Spotify, I discovered, not only has partnerships with a web of production companies, which, as one former employee put it, provide Spotify with “music we benefited from financially,” but also a team of employees working to seed these tracks on playlists across the platform. In doing so, they are effectively working to grow the percentage of total streams of music that is cheaper for the platform.’
In other words, Spotify has gone to war against musicians and record labels."
So basically Payola 2.0
Can someone explain why this is bad? It seems like normal behaviour of corporations.
Or has spotify previously committed to being a fair market?
IANAL but it seems akin to the antitrust case against Microsoft for bundling their own web browser in with Windows or movie studios also owning theaters and giving preferential treatment to their own films.
You seem to be saying that something normal and legal cannot be bad.
I’m just surprised that anyone didn’t assume this was happening. If most people are using playlists generated by Spotify, how are they not expecting Spotify to choose songs that are also in their interest? Furthermore, how would this be different from the practices of a radio station? Seems like manufactured outrage to me.
Just because it’s normal doesn’t me it isn’t bad.
Unfair competition.
The normal behavior of corporations IS bad. By definition.
This is like a soup joint that’s trying to see how much they can piss in the broth before customers notice.
That would be a health hazard, so it’s not really comparable.
It seems more like a soup joint using cheaper ingredients in their dishes, which is just… normal? I don’t get what the big deal is.
It’s normal if you accept it. You do not have to accept it. There’s also a good chance that it’s illegal in Spotify’s case, if not in the US then likely in Europe.
Under what law?
This is behavior is anti competitive under both US and EU and member states’ law.
Issue is the regulatory capture along with strong corporate lobbying on these issues.
If you are with it, that’s cool. But behavior has historical precedent and it requires the state to set bourdit on the extradition practices
Likely antitrust.
That said if you’ve gone down the path of reasoning that says things that aren’t illegal are okay, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I suppose you could argue that Spotify can abuse its position in the same way that Walmart bullies its suppliers and Microsoft freezes out competition, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening here. Like I said, it sounds like they’re just preferring cheaper sources.
Better check the TOS doesn’t include acceptance of various concentrations of piss…
This is a completely disingenuous comparison.
yeah, it’s more like they piss directly into peoples mouthes, but it turns out a few people are into that and can’t get enough of it
According to the RIAA, Spotify is a leading contributer to music revenue going up over the past decade plus https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2022-Year-End-Music-Industry-Revenue-Report.pdf
Prior to spotify, people bought songs or albums, and were locked into their favorites or pirated music, which obviously contributed nothing to artist’s pockets.
Spotify is not the evil entity here, in my opinion. Record labels are.
There are literally musicians with Only fans accounts because Spotify makes then such a pathetic amount of money. Every single artist I’ve ever seen comment on Spotify who hasn’t been amongst the most popular bands in their genre for decades have always said that Spotify is absolutely awful for artists.
Albums/singles traditionally weren’t money makers, merch and concerts were. Nobody is saying record labels weren’t and aren’t shitty, but believe it or not it’s possible for both of them to be shitty at the same time.
Your point feels like a false cause or an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It’s not Spotify’s responsibility that some artists choose to leverage their platform to promote OnlyFans or other side ventures. Artists have the autonomy to seek alternative income streams or even pursue entirely different careers if they find Spotify’s payouts insufficient. Blaming Spotify for these decisions ignores the broader context of the music industry and the role record labels play in revenue distribution.
Additionally, streaming platforms have helped reduce piracy and provided exposure to artists who might not have had it otherwise. The issue is much more nuanced than streaming services bad.
Being an artist doesn’t inherently entitle someone to make a lot of money. Success and income in any field depend on demand, skill, and market conditions. For example, writers often face similar challenges—many authors spend years creating books that may never generate significant income, and only a small percentage achieve financial success. Like musicians, they must often supplement their income through other means, such as teaching, freelancing, or speaking engagements.
Just as no one expects every writer to become a bestseller, it’s unrealistic to assume every musician will earn a substantial income solely from their art.
That said, given my views, I also do not want to be on platforms like Spotify. The music industry as a whole needs to make meaningful changes—finding a way to pay artists fairly, provide a robust recommendation engine, and maintain affordability for consumers. Until these systemic issues are addressed, the current model will continue to leave many artists struggling.
Sure, Spotify could raise their rates 100% and increase their payouts, but that wouldnt stop the record labels from taking their 80+%, as part of the contract the artist signed, and the consumer would end up falling back to piracy.
A couple of years ago we reached the tipping point where artist are paying more for Spotify to promote their music than Spotify is paying the artists. Spotify is more evil than even the record companies at this point.
Streaming only reduced piracy because it presented a more convenient option. This formula has already changed with their predatory behavior.
The reason artist create has little to do with money. It was never about that and those that think it is make shitty music and are owned by corporations.
Technology has set us free from corporate control, but we have to shun commercial platforms. We will never be free running to the wide open arms of business ready to fleece us and lock up our culture behind their pay walls.
Enshitification is here for every corporate platform. There is no escape. The days are 0% interest aka free money are now long gone.
Once they get maket shared they start extracting…
To normal people this is called enshitification
This should theoretically at least be illegal, as they abuse the power of the platform to favor certain tracks unfairly.
Any action would require a government that pretends to care for the pedons.
Spotify is AFAIK Swedish, so there you go.
PS:
I guess you mean peons.
Pedons is apparently a type of soil: https://www.britannica.com/science/pedonSpotify is AFAIK Swedish
It was started in Sweden where its operations are still based, but it’s headquartered in Luxembourg and it chose to IPO on the New York Stock Exchange.
Luxembourg screams “tax efficiency” to me, so their list of pre-IPO investors must be quite the thing.
All western regimes sold out us out, mate
Exploiting us is the MO as workers and customers
I disagree, I live in Scandinavia in one of the best democracies in the world.
EU is mostly OK IMO. Democracy can never be perfect, because it’s about compromises. But without the compromises you’ll have a real dystopia.
But here is just about as good as it gets at our current level of development.
So get real why don’t you?Sweden has regressing with the rest of the west.
Sure they have it better than most of oecd but the corporate take over is underway, they botched the immigration policy which resulted with serious crime rates…
A tiny foil wearing person would think that this was done on purpose to undo Swedish strong socio economic policy
Time will tell but the trend for Sweden is not looking good same way as other countries…
Well put. Cheers, gallons of glogg and a Merry Christmas to you.
Indeed. Regulation is deeply unpopular these days. At least with the oligarchs.
We got enough of their bootlickers in this thread lol
Published in January 2025, seeing the URL, huh.
The article is an excerpt from the full report, which comes out next month.
didn’t they sue someone for doing this on his own? I guess they want to be the only ones doing it.
Devils advocate moment… If people keep listening (or sort of listening) and they are OK with music that seems to lack any soul, is it not just giving the audience what they want and deserve?
Devils concierge moment… What a bunch of shitbags.
An artificial effect is not the same as a natural cause.
Sure, but can you explain what you mean by that in this context?
Just because people consume music slop, does not mean that that is a natural demand (given the supply is explicitly artificial, so certainly there’s an economic incentive to generate demand), or something they deserve to consume or have to be given to consume (you shit every day; does not imply you want shit).
Yeah, I suppose, in a closed system that might he true.
But this isnt a closed system.
Bandcamp, for example is rife with wonderful small scale artists. There are local music scenes. There are loads of ways of choosing to stream music.
The thing is that people choose to listen to Spotify despite this. And that is a choice.
We have to be careful when talking about things when we start suggesting that people are not smart enough, or motivated enough to know what they want.
Demand is not generated here, but fulfilled. People just want background music. The properties of that music, and its artistic integrity, isnt a factor in that decision, so it is a demand based upon other properties… Brand recognition, user experience and ubiquity.
Again, I’m not defending this, and it isnt something that appeals to me, but it is easier to understand how these revelations will probably not make much of an impact of spotifys business model.
Thats some pretty bad stuff: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3wLm5nlYrHkbd29ilMRq89?si=e6f3299113e34bb9&nd=1&dlsi=50e31b2329204ddd
The only people who make money on Spotify is Spotify. Support artists directly if you want them to continue to create.
Is there a streaming model that better supports artists, has a large catalog of music, and is reasonably affordable?
Apple Music pays over double per stream to artists and is better quality audio than Spotify.
I’m pretty sure Tidal pays artists better than Spotify or Apple Music.
2 x 0 at least
From what I recall it’s better but not much better. They also shilled for their snake oil MQA format but thankfully they are moving away from that.
The best thing you can do for artists is pirate everything (cutting out Spotify etc), and purchase an album a month from a band/artist you actually want to support. Buy direct for the artist, or Bandcamp (especially on Bandcamp Fridays)
Also merch and concerts, if this fits you.
All of the above, ideally.
I switched to YouTube Music a long time ago and I’m glad I did.
I switched my corpo daddy for another corpp daddy 🤡
Hey we all need the service but let’s be real YouTube music ain’t a flex here, just a different poison.
If you want to flex, host some local content and deny the parasite that sweet profit
It’s crazy every corporate platform is made shitty after time. It is like the whole system is designed to get you to buy under false pretenses and then later pull the rug out from under you.
Oh wait, did you hear about the new corporate music platform!? Yeah it is great, they pay artist a ton and pinky promise to never turn evil. Let’s all go there!
Trust me bro, we are not acquiring market share to fuck everyone over 🤡
There’s a reason why artists have to sell 50$ t-shirts at shows. Back in the days, the label would leech you dry, and now it’s Spotify, on top of your label
Yes and…
Lily Allen and Kate Nash are on OnlyFans and make more money there…
Yeah, but that’s probably partially due to their existing fame.
Well, yeah.
They make more money from OF than from Spotify… and they are not doing porn.
I don’t pay for Spotify, but if I do pay for music then I would choose Tidal
Spotify was my penultimate subscription. Still have to bring my AWS Lightsail instances back in house. :(
Yeah, enshitification indeed. Was quite happy 4 years ago. Worth $10/mo. to get what I want and some new stuff occasionally thrown in. Suggested music tracked my tastes, easy UI, all that.
Then they upped it $1. Fine. Then I started getting all sort of bullshit when my playlist ran out. “Fuck was that?!”
Now that I cancelled the paid version, the ads are killing me. Look, I’m a GenXer, accustomed to ads for free TV and radio. I’m fine with that revenue model. But fuck me, just like modern radio, the ads became so thick as to be distracting. And of course I can’t use it in the deep woods where my internet is sketchy.
I download all my playlists. FOSS I can use to upload and play that on my phone? Guess I’m back to pirating.
I just recently discovered a band on Soundcloud that has amazing tracks but they all have the familiar feeling of good songs being listened to decades ago, with the voice of the singers similar to that of famous singers of all genres. This is the band in question. [(https://soundcloud.com/flowerpunkhobo)]
I think it’s AI generated music from previous songs from the past.
I think it was revealed several times already in the past. Few examples out my hat:
-
When it was revealed how little they pay artists
-
When they tried to corner the podcast market
-
When they gave Joe fucking Rogan two hundred and fifty fucking million dollars for an exclusive deal
-
After comparing the sound quality of Amazon, Spotify, Deezer and Tidal, the dynamic range of Tidal really stood out - even in lowest quality. At that time, I read that Tidal had the highest payout to the artists. I also like that the service is partially owned by several artists.
The recommendations and feeds are really top notch, just the right mix of stuff I know and like and nice surprises. The “Daily Discovery” often explores a certain genre or mood. There are so many cool bands I’ve found - also from genres I don’t usually listen to. I can wholeheartedly recommend the service.
Or Qobuz, which is like Tidal, but better and they never tried to sell users on made-up MQA hi-res.
I heard of Tidal a long time ago but their non-English support is simply missing. It doesn’t even show the original Japanese titles of many songs I listen to.
How about Qobuz?
Edit: Tested Qobuz and the Japanese support was quite bad too. I searched for a Japanese artist, their name showed up but only one song was there. Tried searching for the title of a song instead, no hit. I thought I was region blocked. Then tried romaji and finally more results, mixed in English and Japanese though. In Spotify I can search in Japanese, English, or romaji when I’m too lazy to switch input method. Also in Qobuz lots of Japanese artists’ profiles were incomplete.
Qobuz is refreshingly good.
I don’t know, do you people let Spotify decide that much about what you hear? I normally never let the music run through so that automatic recommendations play, but I choose explicitly what’s added next in the queue. So the problem mentioned in the article is not relevant to me at all.
not relevant to me at all
Do you think everyone is like you?
No, I don’t think that and I did not write anything like that. I was just sharing my perspective. And was interested in learning how other people use the player.
So that comment was purely out of curiosity and in no way implied a certain degree of incredulousness?
I was asking a question, so yes, I wanted to know how other people see this and how people use the music queue.
Of course I’m sure that there are many different ways to interact with Spotify and I don’t think that any specific type of use is superior.
But since I don’t let the algorithms influence my music selection very much, the problem described in the article doesn’t have that big an impact on my everyday life.
I’m not saying that I think Spotify’s approach is right. I would like a much more user-friendly music player anyway, unfortunately I find Spotify quite cumbersome and inflexible.
Apart from that, I think that artists should get a bigger share for the use of their works.
I usually only listen to one album at a time, front to back. But I think most people don’t do that.
Yes, listening to whole albums is not only great with albums you already know, but it’s also my favourite way to get to know new artists. A single song is often not enough to understand the whole picture or range.
Well, seems to be an old-fashioned approach. But I’m also not the type of person who has music blare in the background all day. So I don’t like the radio-like approach by Spotify to just let anything play what the algorithm thinks is fitting.
