They are a big part of the problem if they’re paying little per stream aggregately. And as they have 30% of the market share (and voluntarily make themselves into the posterchild), they’re getting the flack. If they raised their stream rates, regardless of whatever the deal is with the label, artists would get more (but Spotify and their investor labels less)
Plus let’s not forget 200mil to dumbass podcasters and 100mil to the military industry.
No, this is simply incorrect. They pay the labels probably the same as any other streaming platform, it might flunctuate a bit but in the end the majors get their share. Why the artist gets so little from streaming is dictated by their contract with their label. Spotify has no right nor interest to sidestep a label when paying royalties. They would get sued.
peanuts compared to the 7 billion and counting they pay the major labels each year, but also off topic.
No. That is incorrect
That may also play a role, but if it’s so little to begin with, it’s even smaller when the labels gets theirs. The labels have no incentive to change this because it benefits them too.
Maybe not exactly the same amount per stream, but probably a similar % of their revenue. And then, that money goes to the label and they keep 80-90%.
What they pay out yearly is 1/3 of the total revenue of the whole global music industry. Just Spotify. It’s not little, it’s a shitload of money. 80-90% of that goes to the major labels.
I don’t have the numbers on that but, considering Spotify’s market share, I highly doubt its comparable.
Again, the artists themselves receive little, based on pay per stream aggregately (refer to the posts above).
Imma head out. 
I know a junior accountant in a leading global accounting firm.
They get 100k a year (before tax and it’s all taxed at source, not a penny cash in hand) doing the audits and work their absolute socks off 8-7 every day, and a bit on weekends.
The firm picks up ten times that on their invoice.
Yes, I’ve a very exciting circle. 
So assuming life is about ‘there should be some equitability in how unfair it is’, where should a talented, dedicated and most importantly popularly successful musician fit in that equation?
100k a year to make Spotify a mil, or ?
I’m expecting reality might me more like 100k a year to make Spotify 100 mil, but would love to know how to equate life’s general unfairnesses.
what is the best vehicle to distribute and sell music online? I am hard at work this year to release my first album.
And the percentage of how much they get paid from streaming is defined by the labels in their contracts with the artist, not the streaming platform.
i checked some numbers earlier and Spotify is responsible for around 1/3rd of the total revenue for the music industry, globally.
again, a misconception. The label makes the most money. Spotify some, but probably no more than the manufacturing and distribution chain of olde did.
There seems to be this general misconception that artists were treated fairly back in the physical media era. They were absolutely not. Out of every full priced sold CD the artist made maybe 1 dollar, which at first went to the label to make up for the recording and marketing costs.
What’s really only changed is that Spotify is the manufacturing & supply chain and the labels get to keep more of the revenue due to draconian contracts.
Very interesting.
So basically, having a label deal is a fool’s errand?
If you are good enough, what are the better artist-in-control platforms to be on?
(I like bandcamp, but have zero knowledge)
Yes. Indie labels pay a lot better but lack the marketing & advance budgets and contacts to make an artist grow past a certain level and sustain their popularity. That’s why often even artists who strike gold and get a viral song or a hit album on an indie and make a ton of money sign a major label contract. The label provides contacts and advances without which large scale touring in big venues is hard to pull off. They then own your master records and youget a lower % of the total revenue you generate, but with the promise of a long career and a big label to push you forward. When that doesn’t happen, you get fuck all from any revenue your music makes and don’t have rights to your record.
See: Low and how still, after 30 years they don’t own their first three albums, which have been (badly) reissued once and they haven’t seen a single dime from any revenue since their advance 30 years ago.
Tidal fell?
So Spotify is bad gear too?
I guess not. Must of been low tide when I last looked.
Something tangential, but does anybody know that track that starts playing at around 6.07? Seems like some jazzy version of Rondo Alla Turca, but I can’t find anything.
This seems relevant here.
Over 6000 employees making on average over $150000/year 
. What a colossal waste of time and money. The modern world is so bonkers.
I would say being able to listen to whatever you want whenever you want is pretty cool and a worthwhile mission.
Does that really require 6,000 people?
I’m not so sure.
I guess since my wife runs a nonprofit helping abused and homeless children in our county my experiences are a bit different. Listening to whatever you want whenever you want is waaaaaay down on my list of what is worthwhile to spend more than a billion dollars a year on.
On the one hand I agree with you.
On the other hand where does it end?
Should we consider the music industry a frivolous undertaking until there are no homeless children in the world?
It’s a question I’ve never had a good answer for.
