Spotify CEO to artists: "you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough."

[Jordan Miller]

There's a perception out there that artists, producers and songwriters can't earn a decent income off streaming, but according to Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, that's not true.

Many independent artists want a piece of the pie, but there's a belief that that's near-impossible because mainly major-label artists are the ones added into promoted playlists, not the lesser known musicians. 

Ek says it's not Spotify's fault, it's the artists!

“Even today on our marketplace, there’s literally millions and millions of artists. What tends to be reported are the people that are unhappy, but we very rarely see anyone who’s talking about… In the entire existence [of Spotify] I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single artist saying, ‘I’m happy with all the money I’m getting from streaming,” Ek tells Musically.com. “In private they have done that many times, but in public they have no incentive to do it. But unequivocally, from the data, there are more and more artists that are able to live off streaming income in itself.”

Ek continues that artists need to get with the times: “There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough. The artists today that are making it realize that it’s about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans.” He concluded, “I feel, really, that the ones that aren’t doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released.”

Ek's response received a wave of backlash. Many chimed in that it's extremely difficult to generate a large volume of music because of how much money it costs to produce a body of work. Independent artists don't have the means to create album after album, thus being stuck in the cycle. 

I see where Ek is coming from, but it's definitely narrow-minded and sounds like something a Spotify CEO and billionaire WOULD say. 

Thoughts, Exhale? Should independent artists feel pressured to release more music? Because apparently music is a product that needs to be created regularly???

[RadicalOptimism]

Sadly he’s speaking the truth 

[PokemonSpears]

I mean, I've never done music, but does it really have to be that expensive in this day and age? (Especially considering how anything goes viral these days no matter how good or bad it is)

And in any case, releasing continuous music sounds like favoring singles over albums, so I think that's more possible for indie artists, isn't it?

 

[OnlyBeyonce]

making art isn't like baking a cake, you need to wait for it 

[Brat]

Even big names should put out more music (looking at you Rihanna ).  

[Roxxy]

But it's the truth. Who's fault is it if independent artists don't have the means to continue making music? It's the artist.

I'm not trying to sound not sympathetic here but, is it Spotify's fault that consumers move on to new music and new artists as soon as the next single or album is out? The answer is no. The market is full and it's like a jungle out there. You have to be competitive. 

I think ultimately this is just another hurdle or struggle that indepedent artists need to overcome if they do want to make it in the music industry.

[Jordan Miller]

1 minute ago, PokemonSpears said:

I mean, I've never done music, but does it really have to be that expensive in this day and age? (Especially considering how anything goes viral these days no matter how good or bad it is)

And in any case, releasing continuous music sounds like favoring singles over albums, so I think that's more possible for indie artists, isn't it?

Maybe it is less expensive than ever, but also is music something to be made just to stay afloat? What does that say about the value of it? IDK it's a slippery slope 

[Brat]

1 minute ago, Roxxy said:

But it's the truth. Who's fault is it if independent artists don't have the means to continue making music? It's the artist.

I'm not trying to sound not sympathetic here but, is it Spotify's fault that consumers move on to new music and new artists as soon as the next single or album is out?

I think ultimately this is just another hurdle or struggle that indepedent artists need to overcome if they do want to make it in the music industry.

Being forced to release music also can tarnish their brand 

[Adriannn]

I like the excitement about incoming eras. For someone in his late 20s (lol) keeping up with streaming culture has been weird. I personally don’t mind if artists take a 1 or 2 year break to work on their art, sadly, streaming has rushed everything and made it more... disposable. Just look at charts right now, I feel they are not authentic. One week a song has a lofty debut, next week it falls down to the pits of hell. Slowly, the concepts of era, album, and single seem to fading away, and it doesn’t feel good.  

[Roxxy]

2 minutes ago, Brat said:

Being forced to release music also can tarnish their brand

True, but no one is forcing them. Spotify is just telling the reality. And that is you need to continue engagement with consumers otherwise you risk losing whatever relevance you have. They can keep fighting the tide with their principles but those principles aren't gonna get them streams. But music will. 

[Brat]

4 minutes ago, Roxxy said:

True, but no one is forcing them. Spotify is just telling the reality. And that is you need to continue engagement with consumers otherwise you risk losing whatever relevance you have. They can keep fighting the tide with their principles but those principles aren't gonna get them streams. But music will. 

I thought the labels were forcing them 

Im cancelled 

[Blackout2006]

7 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

I mean, I've never done music, but does it really have to be that expensive in this day and age? (Especially considering how anything goes viral these days no matter how good or bad it is)

And in any case, releasing continuous music sounds like favoring singles over albums, so I think that's more possible for indie artists, isn't it?

 

I am an artist myself, and to get yourself a record label contract, to go to a full studio to record music is more back-of-the-day. I create all my music on GarageBand, where I am provided great loops to provide a great recipe (song)

[xzede25]

He thinks creating music is like eating a pie?

There is a process and it's not as easy as he thinks it is. Artist that records things every years had been working non stop so they can  do something like what he wants.

He basically wants music to be a  full time job  where an artist generates content monthly so they could earn their money...

[Ehju0901]

Remember when Britney tweeted about Spotify and none of us knew what it was at the time? :P

[RadicalOptimism]

I guess I’m going to be misunderstood. It shouldn’t be like that, but it is. The truth is that people aren’t patient like they used to be and regardless of financial situations, they must be consistent or be forgotten. 

[Jordan Miller]

2 minutes ago, Roxxy said:

True, but no one is forcing them. Spotify is just telling the reality. And that is you need to continue engagement with consumers otherwise you risk losing whatever relevance you have. They can keep fighting the tide with their principles but those principles aren't gonna get them streams. But music will. 

I also see this side of things, too.

Imagine Exhale only having one new topic featured on the homepage per day. Content is king. Same for music apparently. 

[Blackout2006]

It’s now these days quite easy to make music, I even myself have shared my songs on exhale itself and even made a thread to share my new song of my upcoming album

[Itscuzim31]

He makes a solid point. That’s why artists are getting creative in how they market their music if they aren’t ones to release albums continuously. For me, Ariana grande  oversaturated the market by releasing things non stop- but she’s a streaming force. It’s the only way to do it if streaming is your bread and butter 

taylor Swift releases 8 different versions of the same album because she wants ppl to buy it (and knows her fans will) 

Beyoncé releases her music as films now ..

Artists need to adapt one way or the other 

[PokemonSpears]

2 minutes ago, Jordan Miller said:

Maybe it is less expensive than ever, but also is music something to be made just to stay afloat? What does that say about the value of it? IDK it's a slippery slope 

I mean, I know, but if those are the rules of the game...

I think artists have to decide, or you wanna live off of it, or you wanna take your time to create these artistic masterpieces. As the CEO says, I think it's unrealistic to release an album, as good as it might be, and pretend to live off it for 3 or 4 years without doing anything else, both for indies or even established artists like Britney or Christina, etc

It's like any normal job at this point. You can't go to the office every now and then and expect to live from that

 

And even independently of how much money they make, just for the engagement alone you have to keep your brand current in the public's mind. Even big artists have to keep releasing music in a constant way, or else they take the risk of getting forgotten. There's always a new artist coming out, and the new generations of public also keep coming. If Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande or the likes took a 4 years hiatus, whenever they come back, it would be very difficult for them to have the same success they have right now, because someone else would have taken their place by then. They just can't let that much time pass without any release, and that's even more true for indie artists.

[Towelney]

Indie artists shouldn’t feel pressured, but what he said is the truth.