Daniel Ek’s aspect hustle as a lightning-rod appears to be going very properly.
Final 12 months he shook the music trade with three huge adjustments to Spotify’s royalty funds, successfully demonetizing tracks with lower than 1000 streams per 12 months…
… and the web went nuts.
Then he in contrast aspiring musicians to beginner footballers.
And the web went nuts.
Then Spotify argued it could pay much less mechanical royalties to music publishers and songwriters as a result of it’s now bundling audiobooks with music.
And the web went nuts.
The price of creating content material: “near zero?”
After which…
… Ek went and did probably the most controversial factor but…
… tweeting one thing that (to me) gave the impression of…
… the reality?
Immediately, with the price of creating content material being near zero, individuals can share an unimaginable quantity of content material. This has sparked my curiosity in regards to the idea of lengthy shelf life versus brief shelf life. Whereas a lot of what we see and listen to shortly turns into out of date, there are…
— Daniel Ek (@eldsjal) Might 29, 2024
Immediately, with the price of creating content material being near zero, individuals can share an unimaginable quantity of content material. This has sparked my curiosity in regards to the idea of lengthy shelf life versus brief shelf life. Whereas a lot of what we see and listen to shortly turns into out of date, there are timeless concepts and even items of music that may stay related for many years and even centuries.
For instance, we’re witnessing a resurgence of Stoicism, with a lot of Marcus Aurelius’s insights nonetheless resonating 1000’s of years later. This makes me marvel: what are probably the most unintuitive, but enduring concepts that aren’t ceaselessly mentioned at present however might need an extended shelf life? Additionally, what are we creating now that may nonetheless be valued and mentioned lots of or 1000’s of years from at present?
-Daniel Ek, Might 29, 2024
The swift backlash from artists
In response to Ek’s declare that the price of creating content material is “near zero,” the web…
… (yep) you guessed it:
Went nuts!
Artists like deadmau5 threatened to take away music from Spotify.
Numerous different artists — each majors and indies — have registered their ire towards Ek’s claims.
Nevertheless, I used to be a bit baffled that this explicit tweet offended so many musicians.
What’s so controversial?
As a result of to start with, Ek wasn’t speaking solely about music on this tweet. He was speaking about human artistic output within the combination.
Songs, books, jpegs, TikTok movies.
All of which truly ARE simpler to create and distribute at present than yesterday.
To say nothing of the benefit of creation now versus 50 years in the past.
What it USED TO COST to launch music
Whereas most artistic expression that’s value sharing DID take heaps observe and ability to develop, and whereas musicians particularly CAN spend some huge cash making music in the event that they select — studio time, session participant charges, the price of gear — it’s additionally true that nice music might be made WITHOUT all of those self same prices.
Due to less-expensive and even free know-how, the barrier to entry (from a cost-perspective) actually has neared zero. Particularly in relative phrases.
Do not forget that many years in the past, the method of making and releasing profitable music normally required (so as):
- A&R curiosity
- A document deal
- A studio funds of lots of of 1000’s and even tens of millions of {dollars}
- Vast bodily distribution
- Nice advertising and marketing and radio promotion
- Sufficient gross sales to justify that shops preserve the album in inventory
- And extra
I’m afraid to whole up that price ticket.
Immediately artists can create a monitor on their cellphone and garner billions of streams on Spotify.
Which may be placing it too merely, after all, as a result of consideration doesn’t simply magically occur.
Artists who’ve gained traction could have labored to construct an Instagram or TikTok following, or spent years streaming on Twitch or YouTube, or toured relentlessly, or assembled an incredible staff.
However the level is: Lots of the earlier financial limitations to creating music are gone.
It’s most likely extra correct to say:
The REQUISITE prices for making content material have neared zero
To not say you SHOULDN’T spend cash to make your music.
Even a self-reliant producer who makes digital music of their bed room with the identical gear they’ve used for years could at some point ask, hmmm, what would it not price to get an actual bagpipe participant in right here, or to get my favourite singer so as to add some vocals?
Personally, I dream of recording with an orchestra at some point. And the going fee for 80 professional instrumentalists is way from “zero!”
However the truth stays that the tune of mine that has probably the most streams on Spotify is a people monitor I carried out and recorded fully myself. So I don’t HAVE to go that spendy orchestral route with a view to attain an viewers, is the purpose. And neither does anybody else at present.
The identical is true for video. Non-fiction. Poems. Design. Comedy.
The one required price is the time it takes you to develop your craft. Plus an iPhone.
That’s why there may be extra artwork being made and launched at present than ever earlier than.
When you’re a rock band, would you like actual drums in a professional studio to no matter you’ll be able to prepare dinner up in your pc? Most likely so. However you’ll be able to distribute your tune to Spotify whether or not these drums are programmed or mic’d.
When you’re a comic, would it not be good to have main funding in your work? To spotlight your wit in an hour-long Netflix particular? Completely.
However that doesn’t change the truth that 1000’s of comedians can simply hop on Instagram and inform a joke. Whether or not it’s on Netflix or Instagram, amusing is amusing.
Oh no! Are we actually speaking about Provide & Demand once more?
All this implies there may be far more artistic output being shared throughout codecs and platforms. And it’s international.
THIS is the fact Daniel Ek was wrestling with in his tweet. Questioning what the sheer quantity of that output means for the methods during which anybody explicit piece of content material will rise to the extent of cultural consciousness. And the way lengthy a chunk of content material can stay there.
As musicians, we don’t wish to see our personal artwork as a part of an financial system. Music is connective, ineffable, essential. It’s priceless, that’s true.
But music is now delivered (and let’s face it, usually consumed) as if it’s an inexhaustible commodity. In a manner, it’s that too.
Which suspends us in a contradiction, and conjures up debate after debate. Is music priceless or value much less? Is the price of creation “close to zero” or “hey, it took me my complete life to write down this tune?”
Many issues might be true without delay.
The availability of music is staggering. The availability of content material is staggering. What does that do to demand?
Looks as if an apparent query to ask in 2024. And a sophisticated one. So I didn’t suppose it was out-of-bounds for Daniel Ek to ask it.
Tread calmly, sir!
After all Daniel Ek is the chief of one of many world’s most vital music firms. An organization that has facilitated, accelerated, and profited from the commodification of music.
So maybe he may’ve chosen his phrases higher.
Particularly after so many different controversial statements and coverage shifts over the previous 12 months. And some pals of mine have steered there’s no different solution to learn his latest tweet besides within the mild of all these earlier controversies.
However I do consider, on this case, his phrases had been taken out of context. And if musicians need to advocate for his or her pursuits, and produce strain towards highly effective gamers within the trade, I believe it’s vital to degree outrage selectively, when issues are literally outrageous.
Do you make “content material?”
Talking of concern, I’ve centered a lot right here on the COST claims in Ek’s tweet, I haven’t even talked about the OTHER supposed outrage. That he used the phrase “content material!”
“I make music, not content material,” exclaimed 1000’s of artists.
Do you make content material? You do! You make musical content material, in any other case often called music. Your artwork is content material. It simply means it has stuff in it.
Lyrical content material, rhythmic content material, harmonic and melodic content material, emotional content material,…
Plus, since Daniel Ek wasn’t particularly speaking about music within the tweet — bear in mind he referenced the traditional writings of Marcus Aurelius — content material is far simpler to sort than “a variety of artistic expression throughout a number of codecs and platforms.”
As soon as upon a time a ebook needed to be printed, sure, packaged, and shipped. A symphony would possibly dwell on vinyl or as dozens of pages of notation. A movie got here in a canister and obtained projected on a large display screen. A picture may be canvas and oil.
However a lot of the expressive work we eat at present is delivered in a uniform manner: 0s and 1s.
They’re digital recordsdata. Going by way of digital pipes.
In that context particularly, “content material” appears okay to me.
It’s a catchall phrase.
I don’t suppose he meant it to decrease your music.
What do you suppose?
These are simply my very own ideas right here, and hey, I may very well be improper.
Do you’ve robust emotions about Daniel Ek’s newest tweet, or any of the large Spotify information over the previous 12 months?
I’d love to listen to it. Go away your take within the feedback of this video.
