|
|
|
|
|
|
by mlrtime
871 days ago
|
|
|
1) "Exploitation" of artists has happened long before Spotify. Even the popular ones with music deals. So Spotify isn't making this better or worse. 2) Talent and success in music have never been tightly correlated. Marketing is what sells music, not just talent. Marketing requires a lot of money (And payola). If anything Spotify levels this playing field a bit. |
|
|
How exactly does the fact that artists have been exploited before mean that Spotify isn't making things worse?
> 2) Talent and success in music have never been tightly correlated.
That's not remotely true. And even pop stars lip syncing songs other people wrote are working very hard, and often exploited.
> Marketing is what sells music, not just talent.
Sure; like nearly everything else. And guess what - most of the artists on Spotify are doing their own marketing.
> If anything Spotify levels this playing field a bit.
"Artists can be paid as little as 13% of the income generated, receiving as little as £0.002 to about £0.0038 per stream on Spotify" [0]. That's not leveling the playing field, that's exploitation; and if you want to defend it I think you need to start bringing actual evidence instead of just spouting your own (deeply unpopular) opinion as fact.
0 - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/apr/10/music-streamin...