[ewzimm]

I think the problem is that people are looking at Spotify as a replacement for album sales, when realistically Spotify is a replacement for listening to music from torrents, YouTube, or Grooveshark. Album sales are a lost cause. If Spotify disappeared, the situation for musicians would not change. Right now, Spotify makes a convenient scapegoat because they are popular and don't pay much, but they are not the cause of the problem. I'm sure many people at Spotify want to help musicians get exposure.

To put this in perspective, $20 is a ridiculous amount of money compared to traditional record contracts, but after administrative and promotional fees were extracted, the classical record contract could often cost musicians money. The recording industry has been preying on musicians for years, but music fanss have been more than willing to pay their favorite bands for merch or buy expensive concert tickets for a live event. Ticket scalping is booming.

There are legitimate revenue streams available to musicians, but pay-per-listen is not going to be profitable.

[dgurney]

It's not true that album sales are a lost cause. Look at Bandcamp -- musicians made $2.5 million via Bandcamp over the last 30 days. What's changing is the model. No longer is it "pay a set fee to listen." Now it's "support the musician directly."

[ewzimm]

Bandcamp is a good service too, but there's no way it will completely overtake the place of cheap streaming that doesn't make anyone a lot of money. I agree that direct support is the way to go, but there's a place for both models.