Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mukbangpervert 3 days ago
The overall economics are wildly different.

Radio didn't pay much, but it was promotion for the album.

Spotify doesn't pay much, and it _replaces_ the album.
1 comments
happymellon 2 days ago
CD sales didn't pay much, because it all went to the labels.
link
mukbangpervert 2 days ago
A million album sales generates $2-3m for the artist under a typical label deal.

150,000,000 streams typically generates $560k _before_ the label cut.

Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person -- not just because you repeatedly lie and distort to defend your position -- but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse".

There's no way to respond to that.

link
happymellon 2 days ago
> but the crux of your argument is "artists had a mediocre deal, so it is fine that the new deal is dramatically worse".

No it's not. I'm saying that artists have always had a shit deal, singling out Spotify doesn't help the systematic problems. I don't use Spotify, I purchase via Bandcamp but that's also because long term its cheaper for me.

> Your posts make clear that you're a wildly immoral person

I'm immoral because I don't think that artists have ever had it good? Alright Mr. RIAA.

https://sociallifemagazine.com/the-archive/90s-record-deals-...

link
mukbangpervert 2 days ago
"Is it really much different to how much artists got from radio?" is a weird way of stating that artists should be paid more.

If you actually want to defend artists... I suggest _not_ drawing equivalence between the old (bad) deal, and the new (much worse) deal.

link