Everybody has to self-promote now. Nobody wants to. \ stacker news ~culture

Everybody has to self-promote now. Nobody wants to.www.vox.com/culture/2024/2/1/24056883/tiktok-self-promotion-artist-career-how-to-build-following

5554 sats \ 16 comments \ @MerryOscar 5 Feb culture

"While Big Tech sites like Spotify claim they’re “democratizing” culture, they instead demand artists engage in double the labor to make a fraction of what they would have made under the old model. That labor amounts to constant self-promotion in the form of cheap trend-following, ever-changing posting strategies, and the nagging feeling that what you are really doing with your time is marketing, not art. Under the tyranny of algorithmic media distribution, artists, authors — anyone whose work concerns itself with what it means to be human — now have to be entrepreneurs, too."

view all related items

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @conduition 6 Feb

While Big Tech sites like Spotify claim they’re “democratizing” culture, they instead demand artists engage in double the labor to make a fraction of what they would have made under the old model.

At least for me, "democratizing" something means turning it into a popularity contest, and I think that's exactly what platforms like Spotify are doing.

Democratic leaders don't want to market themselves - They have to. They're in a popularity contest. If they win, the prize is a fat pay cheque and the power to run the government - ostensibly the actual job. But they can't do the actual job until they get hired by the voters.

Similarly, a musician's job is supposedly to produce music, but until they get hired (i.e. become "famous"), it's a popularity contest against their peers, just like the politician.

This is how self-employment fundamentally differs from salaried employment. Your employer is your listeners, viewers, customers, clients, etc, collectively. Until you establish a base of reliable customers, the popularity contest will never end.

So yes, you have to market yourself, because who else will?

Whether this is a "Good Thing" for the species or not, well... that's still TBD.

296 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 5 Feb

Rick Beato and Tim Pierce had an interesting conversation about this for the music industry. I believe the video was called "death of the middle class musician" or something like that. They also talk about the pros and cons of the new algorithmic content distribution model. Personally, I long for the old days

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 5 Feb

Hmmm old days with record labels choosing who to promote and completely owning artists who are in debt to them seems worse.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @MerryOscar OP 5 Feb

oh would love to watch this - do you have a link?

205 sats \ 1 reply \ @OriginalSize 5 Feb

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 5 Feb

Interesting, thanks.

233 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 5 Feb

This is a good observation, and I'm sympathetic (I have no desire to build a brand in any domain, either) but I'm also kind of a hard-ass: the world moves on. Technology and its affordances change. Rewind twenty years and people were bitching about the tyranny of the labels.

There's always some tyranny. The tech of the moment just dictates its outline.

108 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 5 Feb

I think that was also a great related post: #388164

“You’re a slut and a whore for the algorithm. I couldn’t do it anymore. You can never feed it enough. You start out making art, and hoping that the door will open. You’re looking for that viral moment so it opens up the door and you can do the thing full time. But you start to compromise just to get the door to open: guessing what it wants, debasing yourself, alienating yourself. Until you’re not even in service to your art anymore. You’re in service to the algorithm. Deep down every artist just wants to be seen. Everyone does. And that’s how it controls you. The algorithm makes you behave in a certain way, create in a certain way, in exchange for being seen. And if something can change what you do, it can change who you are. And I didn’t sign up for that. I didn’t sign up to become a content creator. Art was supposed to be a way for me to be in search of, in service to, in community with. It was my ministry. Art was supposed to be my ministry.”

149 sats \ 1 reply \ @0fje0 5 Feb

Hhmm... It doesn't sound all that different to posting on SN, to be honest. :)

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @gmd 5 Feb

On boards like SN/reddit I engage more with the topic first. On twitter/IG/youtube etc the persona drives traffics so I feel it's a lot easier for creators to fall victim to audience capture.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 5 Feb

You don't have to use big tech.

You can be an indie publisher.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Roll 5 Feb

Here is an alternative Spotify list for Artist

Resonate

Founded in 2016, Resonate uses an approach to payouts called Stream2own. With them the cost of streams doubles each listen until you reach the around the dollar mark (that’s nine plays). After that you effectively own the song and can listen as much as you like for no further cost. The thinking here is that users can explore and discover new music without breaking the bank. It’s only once a song hooks you that you really start to fork over the pennies, which seems fair enough.

Uniquely among those mentioned here, Resonate is a cooperative, owned by the people who use it and develop it. Their one member, one share, one vote ethos leaves an especially warm, fuzzy feeling. All the other services described here are private companies that try to behave well, but they’re private companies all the same. You know what they can be like. Meanwhile, any profits Resonate makes goes to its members.

One trade-off of being a cooperative is that Resonate does not yet have the resources to build dedicated apps for iOS and Android. It is instead a browser-based offering - a web app, if you will. That will be a turn-off for some, but the interface is simple and intuitive and you can link from your homescreen and have much the same experience as if you’d installed something.

SonStream

Going all in on a musician-centric model, on SonStream you pay artists directly for streams. Instead of a subscription it’s straight up pay-as-you-go — around 2.5 pence a song (or 3 cents). No fucking around.

If you listen to no songs in a month, you pay nothing. If you listen to 500 songs you’ll pay somewhere in the region of £12.50 (or $15). Seems reasonable right? The direct line between listeners and artists is a real pro here. There’s no opaque processes whereby your money mysteriously finds itself in the pockets of artists you’ve never listened to.

As far as ease of use goes SonStream is getting there. It recently rolled out apps for Android and iOS, which is a mammoth effort in itself. There’s some teething to be done but for a plucky underdog without billions of venture capital to pump into development it’s not half bad. Find a song, press play, enjoy. Simples.

The catalogue is a little lean — one millions compared to Spotify’s sixty million — but it’s growing. Radiohead, Talking Heads, and The Specials are there, to name but a few. An especially nice thing about SonStream’s pay-as-you-go model is it costs nothing to have it installed and ready to go. If an artist is on SonStream, great, listen to them there. If not, no harm done.

SoundCloud

SoundCloud is likely the biggest name to move towards a more user-centric model. In March of 2021 the company announced it was moving towards a ‘fan-powered’ royalty system, meaning artists’ earnings would now directly reflect the number of listens they receive. Before that SoundCloud had a Spotify-esque old model in which money was put into a giant, mysterious pool and distributed at the platform’s discretion. The new model is much more direct. If you listen to three artists during the month, all your money will go to those three artists.

Although SoundCloud stopped short of a guaranteed per-stream royalty rate, their step was still positive - one the rest of the industry will likely be watching with interest. If you’re a vote-with-your-wallet kind of consumer, SoundCloud may be an especially good option. If SoundCloud can make ethical music streaming work then the idea’s time on the fringes could be over.

Bandcamp

Bandcamp isn’t exactly a music streaming service, but it’s been so good to and for artists during the pandemic that it merits a mention. A wide range of artists have stores on Bandcamp, selling both music and merchandise. On digital sales Bandcamp takes a 15 percent cut, and for the merch it’s 10 percent.

Although Bandcamp doesn’t pay out for streams of songs, it does make purchasing music super easy — be it for yourself or as a gift for someone else. Their Bandcamp Fridays initiative (during which they waive their revenue share) have also been fantastic for artists. Keep up to date on the next one at isitbandcampfriday.com.

Their live stream gig functionality is a good way to get your live music fix while supporting the artists you love. Bandcamp takes a 10% cut for e-tickets - the rest goes straight to the artist. Something to keep in mind during the pandemic and beyond.

Source: https://audioxide.com/articles/artist-friendly-alternatives-to-spotify/

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kurszusz 6 Feb

Yes...to be succesful is not enough to be a good artist...needs to be a good entrepreneur with a very good marketing!

Practically you need to be multilaterally developed :)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cyberpunk02 5 Feb

We need to replace Spotify, they area monopoly killing artists! He look over there, solutions! Nostr, Wavelake, Zapstream… dam bitcoiners are good!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justanumber 5 Feb

As far as I can see, it's same with problem with all these big tech platforms.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @masoudehsani222 8 Feb outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.