polewchess.blogg.se

I believe it’s more that the younger generation don’t ‘value’ music as much as older generations. And given huge YouTube numbers and overlapping fanbases, the question arises: if artists distribute their music through YouTube, do they need Spotify? Last year Spotify, announced the addition of videos and podcasts to their service, but still, though YouTube remains the secure default for video. Combining a great song with great visuals can really magnify a song’s success, and artists know this all too well. Simply, audio coupled with video has a greater impact on fans than just simply the audio. Not only that, but YouTube allows artists to easily share their videos with their fans.Īnother factor is video. The service has over one billion active users and acts as a platform for worldwide exposure. The reason is simple: artists need YouTube. There’s a reason why artists complain about streaming services, but don’t say anything about YouTube. There are other streaming services with greater benefits. Regardless of whether it’s justified or not, a lot of that hatred gets misdirected to Spotify. But, artists are claiming that they are not seeing this, which frequently is caused by major labels taking a large chunk of the revenue and giving the artists a tiny share (if anything at all). The streaming service has repeatedly stated that they are pouring 70% of their revenue back into the music industry, which I don’t doubt is true. Spotify is paying out 70% of their revenue back to the music industry, but artists are typically not seeing this value.