Please be aware that this is not a "spotify client" per se. It gets the data from Spotify, and plays the audio from YouTube.

It's an interesting invention, and worthy of the first page, if you ask me.

What I really want is a converter from Spotify abomination to standard podcasts which I can read from any podcast client.

Last I checked the podcasts are DRM encumbered. So you’d have to spin up a client pretending to be chrome and use the Wivedine extension to decrypt every mp3 frame. No hacking required. But Life is too short. So instead I refuse to listen to fake podcasts on Spotify.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/arsenal-home-dani...

BTW, If you need an API key for public API access, you may need to enroll yourself to use that API. I don't ship public API keys with my apps.

So many times when I try to find some music on my partner's spotify account it is just not there, and I give up and we listen to it via newpipe or freetube.

Connecting via YouTube offered significantly more music than via Spotify, albeit some big artists restricted it.

It would simply get the title from the Spotify API and then look it up on YouTube to play.

At some point I actually had set up a rather awful hack where I had a Discord bot that could play webradio and then pointed it towards my own Mopidy server which used the Spotify plugin to have a webpage such that multiple people could add songs and such. It was a great hack though I did not use it for long.

Circumventing DRM, no matter how trivial, is a violation of the DMCA.

I'd have tried it, but I pay for good audio quality so I won't :)

Newer youtubes are "opus (251)", which I think is 128kbps 48KHz Opus (WebM standard).

- Spotify at least used to be ogg vorbis and claims to be "320kbit/s [mp3] equivalent"

I think the 128kps Opus is still considered quite lossy¹ and 320kpbit/s mp3s I know I can hear the difference to wav on some tracks in a blind test, but generally don't find them better or worse.

¹ from some google test:

https://i.imgur.com/odPogeR.png

via https://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/

https://www.opus-codec.org/static/comparison/quality.svg

no question opus is the more efficient codec

Hm? What codec was uploaded if it's an official upload?

As opposed to some mp3 ripped off a scratched CD in some guy's drawer.

Why?

For example, there are many songs on YouTube listed as "Provided to YouTube by CDBaby". (Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpQ668gzA )

CDBaby only provides one format, which is mp3. They'll accept uploads in any of four formats, of which one is also mp3.

So you'd need to answer two questions:

1. Is the file that CDBaby distributes to YouTube the same file they distribute to everyone else, or is it the same file they receive from the artist? (Note: if the answer is #1, that is likely to save CDBaby a bundle on storage!)

2. What did the artist upload to CDBaby?

And then you'd also need to answer analogous questions for the other major providers of official music on YouTube; there are tons and tons of them. CDBaby appears to be unusual in that, in addition to providing your music officially to YouTube, it will also sell it to consumers. Most of these services don't appear to offer anything but official distribution to major websites.

I’ll not rewrite details here, one can search my comment history if more details are required.

This means, to be able to get a good sound from any system, you have to feed it a good signal, and that path starts with recording.

Current audio codecs are great from a psychoacoustic point of view. A good encoder can create an enjoyable file at modest bitrates (192kbps for MP3, and 128kbps for AAC IIRC), and retain most of the details.

The audible residue when you subtract a MP3 from a FLAC is not details per se, but instrument separation and perceived size of the sound stage. People generally call this snake oil, but I have the same amplifier for the last 30 years, and I can say how different qualities of audio render through the same pipeline. A good recording stored losslessly can bring the concert to your home, up to a point. MP3 re-encodings of the same record will sound flatter and smaller.

Lastly, it's not possible to completely contain the sound of a symphony orchestra in a stereo recording. That's not happening. So there's always a limit.

If you have the time, there's a nice ABX test: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/

If using plain old "stereo" mode instead, this problem doesn't occur, but you need a higher overall bitrate for correlated sounds to come through at the same quality, so it's rarely used at modest bitrates and instead tends to be reserved for only the highest bitrates.

Thus, comparing mp3@192 with mp3@320 often actually means comparing mp3@192joint with mp3@320stereo and therefore the listener will find very little if any improvement in the quality of mono-miked center-panned sounds (vocals, etc.) but a decent improvement in the quality of wide sounds (cymbals, reverb, string sections, etc.) since the 320 will have only a few more bits for "mid" but way more bits for "side" so to speak, relative to the 192.

The tests I have done is all encoded by myself. I have purchased 24bit WAV of Radiohead's OK Computer Remastered. I encoded it to FLAC, and 320CBR Stereo with LAME. I still can feel the difference on soundstage, and can create a audible residue file by subtracting MP3 from FLAC version.

I agree that current iteration of encoders create very good audio, however given that your audio system can render high resolution audio, the difference is still audible.

Is this only an issue for mp3 or do other codecs also use fewer bits for the difference between channels?

Usage: "file test.mp3"

Rsult: test.mp3: Audio file with ID3 version 2.3.0, contains: MPEG ADTS, layer III, v1, 320 kbps, 48 kHz, JntStereo

Thank god we have more than 2 ears.

A symphony orchestra is miced per group normally (2 for violins, 2 for trumpets, etc.), but if you're around 60 people, you can mic every instrument individually.

To reproduce the sound 1 to 1, you need to mic every instrument individually, and playback them with speakers matching the frequency response and air pressure . So you need speakers equal to the number and characteristics of instruments themselves. On top of that you need to record them ideal microphones and store them loslessly in the process.

Otherwise, you can't create the sound by recording 100 people with 20 microphones, and downmixing them to two channels. It's not possible. I played in double bass in an orchestra, listened countless orchestras, listened the recordings of our own concerts. The gap is enormous.

It's a very well balanced system for my needs and room size. That's a pretty nifty setup for me.

> Plays on YouTube Music will gain on average $0.008.

Although neither have sources. I imagine YouTube Premium plays match or beat Spotify on average.

Of course, for anything, if you block ads AND refuse to pay for the premium subscription, the artist makes $0 from your listening. Hopefully you can support them off-platform via merch or even purchasing their albums (e.g. iTunes which provides DRM-free versions), but then you're still not paying for the platform if you continue to use one with an ad blocker.

0: https://www.lalal.ai/blog/music-streaming-payouts-2023/

1: https://routenote.com/blog/how-much-music-streaming-services... Although this doesn't take into account

For monetized videos, where Youtube directly pays the channel owner, I've heard a few times now that they really don't pay anything when neither ads are successfully displayed or the viewer has Premium.

Im here to being told I'm wrong. I would love to, specially since we can transpile clojure to dart

[1] https://www.get-plume.com/

EDIT: Is the app down? It doesn't load the "Browse" content for me.

Now tbe modern tech stack is to build a bash+python app in an env, add a touch of R, some js, and bundle it into docker container, then make that docker container into wasm with container2wasm, and give that out as the executable.

It's wonderful honestly. You can get just about anything working with stitching together stuff, and then serve your 10GB executable to anyone :).

So MuCh BeTtEr ThIs MoDeRn WaY!

All of the Qt apps I know about (Ripcord, Dolphin) are fast but the aesthetics of the UI was just terrible. So I gave up on learning Qt. But this thing you made, Plume, actually looks good. If there isn't a monstrosity of hacks and boilerplate underneath this UI I might give Qt another shot. Otherwise I think I might just build my own thing from scratch on top of OpenGL or something....

Outside of the that the next closest I’ve tinkered with is GTK, but since version 3 it kinda gave up on looking right running under anything but GTK/Qt-based desktops. It’s easy to make idiomatic bindings for which is nice though.

And it's actually pretty easy to write the C++ code. I don't really use custom sub-classing much. I use Qt's QtObject which allows me to create C++ object that work beautifully with QML. Bryan's course doesn't delve deeper as that, I had to do a lot of searching to figure it out. I hope to open source some of Plume's components to inspire others to do the same. Another point regarding aesthetics, it really takes effort, but Qt can be extended using community libraries. For example, if you want your app to look native on macOS and Windows with a sexy frameless border with a transparent window, then you could use the awesome qwindowkit[3]. Another example, I wanted to position the window buttons on macOS (the traffic light buttons) differently, but couldn't figure it out, and obviously this can't be done using Qt alone, so I looked at Electron's source code and saw how they do it there in Objective-C and incorporated it in my app (ChatGPT-4 wasn't very helpful at that). Now I really want to have these buttons' fill color transparent like Things 3 does, so I'm looking at how to achieve that haha. I already got some ideas. If you need any further help, let me know![4][5].

EDIT: A cool feature of combining Qt C++ with QML is that you get the performance of a compiled language like C++ with the reactivity, ease-of-use, fluid and easy animations (and more) of QML. You can see on Plume's website that it's 4x faster than the fastest comparable native app on macOS.

[1] https://www.udemy.com/course/qml-for-beginners/

[2] https://www.loom.com/share/b40009316f6b420b9ece15a1f99e987c

[3] https://github.com/stdware/qwindowkit

[4] https://twitter.com/mamistvalove

[5] ruby AT mamistvalove DOT gmail

I think that if these performance issues were to be solved, Flutter would see a bigger adoption. In any case IMHO Flutter >>>>> Electron

[1]: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/56257

That sounds about as good of an idea as the old Java desktop GUI framework that used to (poorly) imitate native UI elements of Windows and macOS: Everything always looked three major versions behind and felt extremely janky.

The problem is that, on the web, the performance is extremely poor, so Flutter is still not worth being used there (IMHO).

I was very unimpressed by flutter when we PoC it at work, but that was years ago, so maybe it’s gotten better since.

When "multiple windows" is a feature to be announced (as if weren't trivial on any native stack), you know it's a sad state is affairs.

That sounds like Microsoft deflecting blame. You've been able to do multiple windows for a very long time in Electron, I remember being able to do so in 2019 at the very least, and the book "Electron in Action" (https://www.manning.com/books/electron-in-action) even have a chapter dedicated to it, a book which was released in 2018.

What it couldn't do, though, was to have a single workspace span multiple windows (ie "detach" tabs).

Whether or not this was caused by an electron limitation or a design flaw in VSCode, I can't say. Though I find it hard to believe that it would have been impossible to implement had they really wanted to.

Although similar to something like React Native - Flutter does paint the screen. Personally I see it as a potential Electron replacement in the future.

From what I’ve seen Impeller is also a big help on iOS. Screen jank was pretty bad for us when Flutter was using Skia as a rendering engine, although when I last messed with Flutter (~6 months ago) Impeller felt almost production ready but iirc there were still a couple small things, not sure if they are better now.

Personally I’ve become a big fan of Flutter, especially for back-office/utility type apps. We would follow all the Material Design 3 guidelines and when it comes to time spent, if you need to develop the same app on more than 1 platform, it’s worth consideration.

I’ve found some people will say: “But it’s hard to get it to look like a native app in Flutter” but for me I’ve always seen that as more of a skill issue. You are literally painting the screen, you can get whatever pixel perfect design you want, if it can be Figma’d it can also be Fluttered and to be fair there are Cupertino widgets and you absolutely can get the best of both/many worlds if you want. Just like how on the web you can do a transform based on device width to switch between the mobile or web view, if you desire you can have different widgets show up for different platforms and give everybody a native feel. I personally still think that’s easier than writing/maintaining multiple individual apps.

I think the biggest downside though is that search engines don’t do well with Flutter Web. It isn’t the nice easy to crawl HTML, and it’s really hard to get a flutter app indexed or to give it good SEO. There’s also silly rules that search engines have about how the content displayed to the user vs crawlers has to have the same data. (I.e. when the web-crawler asks for your page, you are supposed to give it a page with the same data you would give the user.) The best we could do to improve SEO was to make the landing page a page that in the background ran all the same queries and shoved the data into HTML tables, with a popover that said “this is a page for robots that had a button that said “Take me to ABC.com” and a check box that said “automatically redirect me next time” that we stored in a cookie. It was hacky and not a good user experience.

For now, whenever I need to do anything GUI I will use React for the web and Flutter for everything else, but it would be nice to truly be able to only use 1 framework for every platform, which to be fair I’ve used Flutter web and it isn’t all to bad if it weren’t for the issue with search-engines web-crawlers. For apps that don’t need SEO.. Flutter is a great choice. I suspect we’ll see a lot more SaaS apps building in Flutter in the next few years. I think it’s on the cusp of being mature enough to be seriously considered for production scenarios.

I’m just mostly worried about the ecosystem. Google chose Dart for flutter after the results of a lot of research that only Google scale companies can do and to be honest although it IS a lesser known language it isn’t a bad one. It’s AOT and JIT so the hot reload is amazing. It reads like “insert most language you know” here. If you know how to code nothing in Dart should be drastic or surprising. If anything I’d almost say Dart is boring, which I like boring things. I’ve experience with a handful of languages, and for me Dart ranks highly in terms of usability/ergonomics. But there’s a not unsubstantial risk that Google could decide to drop the ball and Flutter could become kind of like the Windows phone. Really great, but canned because people didn’t build enough things for it.

If I were on the Flutter team I’d be most focused on figuring out how to deal with SEO issues. (assuming impeller does indeed provide a full fix for the screen jank, I’d assume it’s gotten better in the past few months, can anyone comment as to if it’s “there” yet or not?)

It's enabled for ios by default. Android probably in two more releases if I had to guess. If you were doing a lot of custom stuff you may run into issues with Impeller on some CPU bound tasks regarding tessellation but for a regular flutter app it will almost always outperform Skia especially around previous pain points like scrolling and animation.

https://github.com/linsomniac/spotify_to_ytmusic

The biggest reason I ditched Spotify is that their shuffle play of playlists is laughably bad. I like listening to just a shuffle of my favorite music, but their player seems to "stick" on just a few of them. I ask it to shuffle a few thousand "liked" songs, during my shower every day, and I'll hear the same song 3 times in a week, for example.

There was a "bug" open in their support forum since 2017 that they replied "maybe we'll look at it eventually". It has hundreds of pages of replies. And they just laid off a significant portion of their workforce, so I figured it'd never get resolved. And for a company doing music playback, it just seems like they can't get one of the basics right.

Since going to YTMusic, I've been hearing songs from my playlists that I haven't heard in years.

The problem seems to be that on larger playlists they will only use 50-100 of the tracks to shuffle through. Most times I'm listening to music I just want to put on a shuffle of all my favorites and listen. It's been that way since I got my first CD changer. Maybe that's a super unusual use case, but it's my primary one, and I get really tired of hearing the same songs repeatedly over a week. YMMV, my wife for example likes listening to the same songs every day.

As I mentioned above: I copied my Spotify playlists to YTMusic and am doing the same "shuffle my liked songs" and I'm literally hearing songs Spotify hasn't played for me in years. Usually the algorithm complaint in music players is that they are using random rather than shuffle, but even in that case I'd think that 2K songs over 2-3 years, I'd be hearing SOME of those songs that YTMusic is playing but Spotify is not. The cynic in me figured that they were prioritizing the songs by the ones that made them the most money, or from artists that paid for placement. But something about their shuffle is just totally off.

So I started clearing the Spotify client cache more often, and it looks to me there is more diversity, at least on the auto-generated "recommended songs" playlists. But still, no hard proof of this.

My best guess is that they are assuming no playlist is more than 50-100 songs, and are limiting the shuffle to that number, so that a shuffle doesn't consume too many resources (memory, database hits, CPU cycles). Maybe someone, possibly in the distant past had a large playlist that caused service problems. And because of that they clamped WAY down to prevent it.

I had a friend that worked on Google Play, and he said it would have been much better if the labels hadn't gotten involved, in the form of demands made...

My primary complaint with YTMusic is that there isn't a way to "shuffle play", you have to start playing a playlist and then click "shuffle" and then click "next".

A couple corrections: It's from 2020, not 2017, and it "only" has 114 pages of replies rather than 200.

One thing I notice, and that's not an issue of the app but rather that of the youtube sources is that the sound quality between songs is not consistent and overall worse than Spotify

Still feel this is the right way to think about collecting and curating music going forward…

Thwn, you can stream your own music and Spotify's music side by side.

And, it's a double win, since they're not paying an royalty fees for a single user streaming music they already own.

I hope musicians can pay bills with likes, since ponying up €10.99 is a huge ask.

PS: not that many musicians are able to pay bills with their spotify checks, but that's not the point.

What IS the point, though? You seem to be criticising people who don't purchase a Spotify Premium while also admitting Spotify barely pays them anything. Yes, this client gives nothing to the artist, Spotify gives next to nothing, both are bad in different ways.

If anyone genuinely wants to support musicians - buy their merch, go to their concerts, buy their albums on Bandcamp or physical media. No streaming platform pays them their dues.

Pirating doesn't support the artists, but it's also not weakening their expected rights for future business contracts, which supporting services like Spotify does; after all, if all these other artists are getting paid 'x' much, and all these consumers think this is what it's worth, how is anyone but Beyonce or Swift or Kanye gonna have any hope of arguing against that?

There is no way to inform Spotify that you don't endorse their business practices, except to not subscribe. Subscribing is an endorsement.

Personally, I purchase my music individually on iTunes (and download and convert to mp3). Apple still takes a cut, but it's much lower than the near-100% cut that streaming services take.

All the main music services operate on the 70/30 split in favour of the license holders.

If you pay $10 for a subscription, $7 gets put into a pool with all the subscription and ad revenue for your country, and that gets divided out proportionally based on the playback in your country. If Taylor Swift gets 10% of the plays in the US, she gets 10% of the pot.

If you're of the opinion that pirating artists' music is better for them in the long run, that's cool. But at least be informed on what the business model you're complaining about actually entails.

I guess that would depend on how much music you listen to. If you listen very occasionally, then yeah €10.99 for unlimited streaming isn't worth it. In that case, you can just buy songs individually.

If the price for individual songs is also a "big ask" for you, then you simply don't think music is worth paying for.

This isn't a "pay what you want" model where someone creates a product and asks you to pay whatever you feel is appropriate, they're creating a product and setting an explicit price for it.

The idea was you just give it the metadata and it "resolves" it into any service. I really like this idea. it kind of lives on in "playlist converters" like tunemymusic or soundiiz. but it is not the same as it being built into the player itself (like spotube albeit with a different more straightforward aim here)

[0] https://github.com/tomahawk-player/tomahawk

[1] https://github.com/tomahawk-player/tomahawk-resolvers

1. https://github.com/spotDL/spotify-downloader

It will download any Spotify playlist or YouTube playlist as a bunch of individual MP3s, and do it fast. You can also paste individual song links to download them. Great quality and UI.

I maintain an open source web-based music player called Stretto[1]. It works well as a PWA on Android, but it depends on a chrome extension to bypass CORs.

Allows you to import playlists from Spotify and automatically backs them with a YouTube track (similar to this service). Also supports adding SoundCloud tracks, for those that love their remixes.

[1]https://github.com/benkaiser/stretto

> No ads, thanks to the use of public & free Spotify and YT Music APIs¹

There's zero permission to use Spotify's APIs in this way. So what does "thanks" mean in this context?

I don't like projects like this that potentially ruin it for the rest of us.

But if you aren't going to apply things in context they won't make sense.

Was quite a similar idea: load Playlist from Spotify but play the actual music from YouTube. Still proud of that one, good times when Discord was wild territory.

> Flutter

…

Although youtube music is in the plan, I don't use it, because the UI is not that great and there's this weird entanglement with youtube videos.

I generally use (video) youtube and soundcloud for music. They're the easiest way to find the stuff I like to listen to.

Just a few after using it for 30 min.

Yes, mixing Spotify playlists with a YouTube frontend is a great idea, but in no way is this new. Anyone following the app modding scene on XDA-Developers (pre-enshittification) or Telegram has likely seen atleast half a dozen apps that have been implementing the same thing for the last five years.

  Anyone following the app modding scene on XDA-Developers (pre-enshittification) or Telegram

The default install location for Spotube on windows is in the same directory the installer is launched from - so if it's downloaded to the default "%UserProfile%\Downloads" then it's going to install to "%UserProfile%\Downloads\Spotube" ... and, like, who wants it there?

Their recommendation component is one of the few reasons I pay. Everything I ever wanted to hear is on YouTube.

If users could log in with their YouTube account as well, then us folks that pay for Premium could also support the artists we listen to, win-win.

Playlist management could be improved. It took me a while to figure out that you have to hold on a song to select it. It would be more reasonable to select a track and delete it with the delete key or from a right-click menu. Right now the "Remove from playlist" option does not work.

Its the only reason I clicked, and I am disappointed that this is more about piracy than sane gui.

Musician deserve to be paid for their work, and it's not fair to them to bypass all of the mechanisms to do that. Spotify doesn't pay musicians well, but there are still indie artists making a living from it nonetheless.

I hear a lot of people these days complaining about ads, and that's totally fair. But when it comes time to pay for content, those people rarely are willing to pony up. You can see this happening with journalism, music, apps, etc.

Similarly, most people hate subscriptions, but you can always buy music directly if you don't want to subscribe! A lot of smaller artists provide ways to purchase their music that give them a large percentage of the proceeds, and you can get the music DRM-free if that's something you care about.

Even if you only listen to one artist, 8 hours per day, 365 days a year, they will earn a whopping... 100 bucks from Spotify.

This is false. And I mean, dramatically.

> Even if you only listen to one artist, 8 hours per day, 365 days a year, they will earn a whopping... 100 bucks from Spotify.

It's roughly 200$.

Number of songs per hour: 60 minutes / 3 minutes per song = 20 songs

Total listening hours per year: 8 hours/day * 365 days = 2,920 hours

Total streams per year: 20 songs/hour * 2,920 hours = 58,400 streams

Total earnings: 58,400 streams * $0.004 (average pay rate) = $233.60

How high do you think that number should be, to be non-"whopping"?

I am seriously confused about what or who anti-streamers think they are zealoting for, what alternative fantasy they are defending.

As someone who has worked in the music industry (i.e. the people actually making a living through music) I witnessed Spotify/YT and the likes as an absolute force of creation of a new class of musicians, that would never have existed before.

I don't deny that Spotify has improved the situation for many artists, but rather that it hasn't done enough and other approaches do it better, and I believe this is factually true.

Let's just skip the part, where we imply it's somehow okay to circumvent fair use, because nobody is making money off of streaming anyway or any such nonsense. Streaming as intended is fine for now. People can just use Spotify, or any of the alternatives, as they are intended and that's fine and on the whole better than anything we had before.

For the record, I am steelmanning a position in which abject piracy is a social negative, which I do not actually believe, but if we take that at face value my arguments still hold.

2. If you just listen to the occasional song, listen to them on Spotify. Artist gets _some_ money, but nowhere near as much as #1.

3. If you don't care about the artist getting anything at all, then use workarounds like this tool, or download on torrents.

Most people used to do #3, and are now doing #2. #1 is just not going to happen, because there's too much friction.

Why do we keep insisting on having middlemen?

Not that I believe it's good or bad either way, it's just cumbersome. People want easy solutions. A few of my long distance friends are artists, and it makes them happy to see that I have bought their new cassette or vinyl on Bandcamp above the regular price, and send nice notes with it.

I can do this for more people more easily thru Bandcamp than figuring it all out myself.

Fair enough. Then don't pay anything?

> it makes them happy to see that I have bought their new cassette or vinyl

On the other hand, I do not want to buy merch, I don't care about physical media and I flat out refuse to buy something with DRM and/or through exploitative middlemen.

Assume the album has 10 songs, is one hour long and costs $20. Ten songs means they get $0.04 each time you listen to it. So, you need to listen to the album 500 times for the artist to be paid for the album. I mostly listen in the car; call it under 2 hours a day, but lets assume 4 hours a day of listening to Spotify.

A Spotify subscription is $11 a month. I can fit 4 non-fraud plays of the album into each day, so that's 4 * 30 = 120 streams. It'd take 4 months of listening to nothing but this one album for the artist to break even, and it'd cost me $44.

Bandcamp + bittorrent would give the artists about twice as much money on average. Buying merch also pays artists more, assuming the cost of the item plus shipping is under half what they charge.

13,400 bands (not artists) got paid over $50K by spotify in 2020:

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/how-many-artists-are-...

There are 8 million artists on spotify, and over 80% had under fifty monthly listeners:

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/over-75-of-artists-on...

Put another way, 0.16% made over $50K. That's median income in the US. If you assume the money gets split across 5 band members, that's median income in Indonesia.

The fact that every creative endeavour or sport is a mix of a few pros and a lot of amateurs (in the sense that they do not make a living) is not an issue.

The value of Spotify and the like to most artists is enabling them to publish to everyone for basically free, no matter how fringe or bad, and to do it all the time. I think that's wonderful.

https://bandcamp.com/about

> In the past year alone, they’ve spent $194 million on 14.2 million digital albums, 10.4 million tracks, 1.75 million vinyl records, 800,000 CDs, 350,000 cassettes, and 50,000 t-shirts.

Note that $194M is less than 10% of Spotify's revenue.

I'd love to see a breakdown by percentile income per band, but one thing's clear: If I buy something there, then more of my money goes to the artist I'm trying to support than they get from me streaming their album.

I'm not sure that "they get paid so little that we may as well stop paying them anything" is an argument you really want to make here? Yes, Spotify pay is crap. Not paying anything is crap too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Spotify is just leeching of the culture and as drew pointed out you will be 10000 times more effective if you use one of those options.

Spotify is more or less just a signal booster nowadays - because you have to be on there since everyone uses it.

I for one would never put my music on Spotify, even if I get what like 20$ out of it, what a horrible company and service.

Not everyone is on bandcamp. Seems like some sort of north american website.

Of course not.

> I’m in Asia btw, largest continent of the world.

Those were only a few examples from the top of my head. We also had sales in S. Korea and Japan.

Not really.

curious how do ppl discover your band on bandcamp?

you are wrong in your assurances( eg: i am listening to this on spotify at the moment Odeon Yılları Album by Nesrin Sipahi ) and your "other options" have nothing to do with how you listen to their music. Ppl listening on spotify also go to concerts they are not mutually exclusive.

I didn't find that artist on bandcamp or any other non-streaming platforms. only on spotify, youtube, apple music. Are they not equivalent, didn't realize you were making a point specifically about spotify.

And yes I will surely go to that artist concert if they are in my area. Me listening to on spotify has nothing to do with it. If anything I would've never found that music if it wasn't for spotify.

And there are many options to buy her music as physical copies directly from her labels.

Of course it’s fine to use Spotify to listen to music and find new artists - I’m saying the worst way to pay artists that rely on their fan base for income.

Who said this though?

This is what you originally said.

> If you care about the artist here pay them directly either through bandcamp

I responded to this

> I assure you that every artist that wants to make money will have set up _something_

Why did you bring 'far cry from a small indie artist ' into the picture all of sudden when you said 'every' in original comment.

Your original comment was about 'small indie artist' only ? You should've said 'small indie artist will always set up something' if you meant that. agree that might be true for small artists.

https://www.amazon.com/CDs-Vinyl-Nesrin-Sipahi/s?rh=n%3A5174...

They're selling CDs, Vinyl and MP3s on Amazon, but their SoundCloud only has 29 followers.

Maybe they screwed up when they went all-in on indie digital distribution back in... 1978?

https://turkishvinyl.com/record/57/

I think that would be obvious to anyone that wants to have a conversation in good faith.

Your comment wouldn't have been worthy of a response if you had said 'small artists'. Because thats well known problem with all streaming platforms and not just music.

Now looks like you are not even saying 'small artists' . It only applies arists who are not 'well known' ? No idea what you are even trying to say. Maybe use some precision ?

Of course I can’t give an extremely precise category of artist that is better paid directly than through Spotify - but everyone reading that argument in good faith knows what is meant.

You just choose to read it in the most unfavourable way imaginable.

Seriously, I would rather visit Bandcamp a 100 times than use Spotify, even though the website player of Bandcamp sucks and I need a user script to regulate the volume of it.

If you didn’t want to support artists you can just say so and cut out the gymnastics.

> If you didn’t want to support artists you can just say so and cut out the gymnastics.

classic projection