Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now.

Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up.

I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems that make it infeasible for certain types of artists to make any sort of living.



Edit:

I’m not advocating for touring being better. I hate touring. But the streaming amounts we’re discussing are really tiny in the end. The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.


> The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.

I'd surely hope $7000/month is considered a success. A passive $700/month from streams would be considered a success around here.

This is the assumption the stream counts continue, of course.


Yes, if you're touring.

The new way doesn't require this. And is purely gravy on top.

I was just giving numbers, not condoning their payout scheme as something to move forward with.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: