There’s been some concern that Spotify doesn’t generate enough revenue for the artists. I’m not involved or affiliated in Spotify in any way (so I don’t know the workings of the agreements in place here), but I would like to contribute to the debate by a comparison.

Swedish national radio P3 has somewhere between 100 000 and 300 000 listeners on average: let’s say 200 000 for our example. P3 pays 100 kronor (€10) per minute. A typical song therefor generates about 350 kronor (€35). So if Spotify should generate the same amount of money then 200 000 individuals need to seek out and listen to the same track - or one huge fan need to listen to your song 200 000 times!

Magnus Uggla (Magnus the owl) is one of those who have been complaining claiming that 55 000 plays has generated “what a decent street musician makes in a day”.  (För att läsa Ugglas inlägg, se:
http://ugglanyheter.blogspot.com/2009/08/den-nya-piraterna.html). Uggla goes further, he says that he’d rather be raped by Pirate Bay than buttfucked by Sony Music (yes, those are his words).

But what Spotify does is generate a small (yes, I grant him that) revenue per song played - but still it’s revenue. All the arguments about seeding promoting music… well, now you can both enjoy full length music and support the artist at the same time, no stealing necessary!

Uggla is a perfect example of someone who makes money off of Las Vegas like entertainment shows (krogshower) and big outdoor summer concerts, potentially also merchandise. So he’s not dependent on revenue from sales or airplay. Indepentent artists doesn’t have these venues, and if every play generates ever so small a revenue - I think it will ultimately be an improvement of the conditions indie musicians have been forced to live under, in the 21st century thus far.

To further the argument: So far radio stations like P3 have been paying to performing rights societies. But smaller stations drowning in paperwork often doesn’t pay - or like one example I heard about: The station took one random day of the month and multiplied that playlist by 30. So if you were played that day you got 30 times the money, if you (most likely) were played any other day - you got silch. Spotify digitizes the paperwork and everyone gets their tiny piece of the action, but exactly distributed according by plays. Also the “cassette/CD tax” that you pay when you buy blank cd’s, (off course) this doesn’t go to the artist that get their work pirated onto that CD. This is instead distributed according to the top 100 billboard for album sales. Again, a system like Spotify corrects this imbalance.

When I stuck my nose out saying that stealing isn’t cool some people maybe thought I was against change. I’m very pro-change - but I think one condition for succesful change is that both parties (with music that’d be listener and artist) is onboard with the change at hand. I see Spotify as this possibility.

We have yet to see whether or not you can live off of this type of music Revenues, potentially not. But if artists decide that the want to distribute music this way - or not - then this choice is ultimately made by the artists, and not for them by (for example) pirates.

Much love
Jonatan