[satyrnein]

Sorry, I'm not following, how is getting paid less the same as getting a higher percentage?

Artists have always been in competition with each other for the same consumer attention/dollars. Indie artists often undercut prices of popular artists on CDs or downloads to try to incentivize discovery. In the streaming era, the marginal cost to the consumer is zero (which is great for discovery!), but Discovery Mode is bringing back pricing as a means of competition on the supplier side, for better or worse.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Sorry, I'm not following, how is getting paid less the same as getting a higher percentage?

The premise is that we want more artists, so the combined way we get this is that a) the artists get the savings from digital distribution, instead of the labels, creating a larger pool of money for the artists, and b) we have fewer superstars, so that pool of money allows more artists to exist, instead of just allowing the same number of superstars to pad their coffers even more.

The result is that the average artist gets less, because there are more of them. But less than Taylor Swift is still more than enough to make a living.

> Indie artists often undercut prices of popular artists on CDs or downloads to try to incentivize discovery.

This is fine if they lower the price to the consumer, because then the consumer's finite number of dollars allows them to buy more music from other artists, and thereby supports the viability of other artists. Or, from an individual perspective, getting a million sales at $0.05 is just as good as getting half a million sales at $0.10 -- or better, because more people discover your work and may then go to live shows or buy the next release.

The problem with Discovery Mode is that it lowers the price to Spotify, which is still going to charge the market-clearing price to the customer, and then they use the money to line their own coffers and shrink the pie for the artists.