A comprehensive guide to releasing your music globally on streaming services(Letto 104 volte)

/0 Comments/in , /by

A comprehensive guide to releasing your music globally on streaming services

Publishing music on Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Deezer, Tidal, TikTok, Instagram and other digital platforms is not simply a matter of “uploading an audio file online”. It means properly preparing a music release, compiling consistent metadata, choosing a digital distributor, managing identification codes, rights, royalties, artist profiles and promotional activities both before and after the release.

Nowadays, for most independent artists, this process takes place via a digital distributor, often also referred to as aggregator. Spotify explicitly explains that music is uploaded to the platform via a distributor, which handles distribution, licensing and the payment of royalties; Apple Music also encourages independent artists and small labels to work with a distributor, preferably one listed in its partner directory.

What does a digital distributor actually do?

The digital distributor acts as the technical and administrative intermediary between the artist or label and the streaming platforms, often referred to as DSPs, or Digital Service Providers. You don’t submit your music separately to Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer and YouTube Music: you upload your material once to the distributor’s dashboard, select the territories and platforms, fill in the release details, and the distributor sends everything to the various services.

Their work typically involves submitting audio files, the cover art, metadata, ISRC and UPC/EAN codes, artist information, credits and the release date. Following release, the distributor collects the royalties generated by the sound recording and makes them available in your account, in accordance with its own timetable and terms and conditions. Some distributors operate on an annual subscription basis, others charge per release, whilst others take a commission on royalties. Services such as DistroKid, CD Baby, TuneCore and LANDR claim to distribute to Spotify, Apple Music, TikTok, YouTube and many other platforms, often covering over 150 digital stores or services.

It is important, however, not to confuse digital distribution with publishing administration. Distribution relates to the master, that is, the sound recording. Publishing administration, on the other hand, relates to the composition: melody, lyrics, harmony and the structure of the musical work. TuneCore, in its documentation, clearly distinguishes between the two areas: distribution collects royalties relating to sound recordings, whilst publishing relates to compositions.

Before publishing: what you need to have ready

Before opening the distributor’s dashboard, you should have a well-organised folder containing all the final material. The first thing is the audio master. It must be the final, checked version, exported without errors, with clean start and end points, free from clicks, accidental noise or truncated tails. Most distributors accept uncompressed WAV files, generally at 44.1 kHz and 16-bit or, more rarely, at 48 kHz and 24-bit; the distributor will specify the exact requirements. (However, there is currently a debate about whether formats should be standardised to a definitive 48 kHz and 24-bit standard.).

The second thing is the cover art. It must be square, clear, consistent with the title and free from any problematic elements: unauthorised logos, misleading references, URLs, prices, barcodes, third-party trademarks or copyrighted images. For example, Spotify requires a cover image in TIFF, PNG or JPG format, with a 1:1 aspect ratio, between 640 and 10,000 pixels per side, in sRGB colour space. Apple Music recommends high-quality square artwork and, in its specifications for digital packaging, specifies 3,000 × 3,000 pixels or higher as the recommended size, with a minimum of 1,400 × 1,400.

The third thing is metadata. This is where many artists go wrong, because they think it’s just bureaucratic data. In reality, metadata is what enables platforms to understand what you’re publishing, attribute it to the right artist, display it in search results, link it to the correct profiles and calculate royalties. Track title, album title, artist name, featured artists, songwriters, producers, language, genre, release date, label name, copyright, year of release and identification codes; all must be specified and consistent.

ISRC, UPC/EAN and why they are important

Every track released should have an ISRC code, i.e. an International Standard Recording Code. The ISRC uniquely and permanently identifies a specific sound recording or music video. IFPI, the international authority on ISRCs, explains that this code serves to avoid confusion between recordings and to simplify the management of rights when a recording is used across different formats, channels and agreements.

The rule of thumb is this: if you only change the track title, cover art or distribution, the track can retain the same ISRC; however, if you make substantial changes to the recording, mix or master – such as a live version, remix, radio edit or alternative version – a new ISRC is normally required.

The UPC or EAN code, on the other hand, identifies the release as a whole: whether it is a single, an EP or an album. The distributor often generates this automatically. For an independent artist releasing their first few tracks, this is usually the simplest option. For an established label, however, it may be useful to manage prefixes, codes and the catalogue independently.

Choosing the right distributor

There is no such thing as the perfect distributor for everyone. There is, however, a distributor that suits your way of working, your budget, how often you release music, the level of control you wish to retain, and the kind of growth you envisage for your music project.

For an emerging independent artist, the choice should not be based solely on price. Price is important, but it is not enough. Before entrusting your catalogue to a digital distribution service, it is also worth assessing the clarity of the contract, ownership of the masters, how long releases remain online, any hidden costs, deductions from royalties, platform coverage, quality of support, the ability to correct errors, metadata management, transparency of reports and reliability of deadlines.

To make this assessment less general, we have devised a weighted scoring system based on 53 parameters. Each parameter was assigned a weighting of between 1 and 100 according to its importance for an emerging artist; each aggregator was then scored on a scale of 1 to 100 for each parameter. The final score is therefore derived from a weighted calculation, not simply from a subjective impression. Full details of the methodology, weightings and scores are set out in the’Methodological Appendix.

  1. The first point to consider is still the economic model. If you release a lot of tracks each year, an annual plan with unlimited releases may be good value for money. If you release tracks only occasionally and want to avoid subscriptions, a pay-per-release option may be more suitable. If you’d prefer to keep the initial cost down, you could consider a model based on a royalty commission, provided you’re clear about how much is deducted and under what conditions.
  2. The second aspect is the availability of the online catalogue. Some services keep releases available even if you cancel your subscription; others require additional options, renewals or specific conditions. This point needs to be checked very carefully: a music release shouldn’t disappear just because you’ve forgotten an annual payment or because you haven’t fully understood a clause.
  3. The third aspect is the coverage of platforms and territories. For many artists, Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, Deezer, Tidal, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are enough. For others, particularly those targeting international markets, Asian, African and Latin American platforms, or services specialising in specific genres, may also be relevant.
  4. The fourth aspect is the artist profile management. Some distributors make it easier to access Spotify for Artists, Apple Music for Artists, Amazon Music for Artists or the YouTube Official Artist Channel. This is important because an artist profile is not just a showcase: it allows you to manage your image, bio, statistics, pitching, related content and listening data.
  5. The fifth aspect is the technical and administrative support. If you’re an experienced artist, you can get by with minimal support. However, if you’re releasing music to specific deadlines, working with collaborators, featuring other artists, putting out different versions, or following a pre-planned promotional strategy, support becomes crucial. A mistake in your artist profile, a poorly listed collaboration, or a release ending up on the wrong page can jeopardise the launch.
  6. The sixth aspect is the availability of additional services: editorial pitching, synchronised lyrics, video distribution, YouTube Content ID, social media monetisation, pre-saves, split royalties between collaborators, advanced analytics, publishing administration, cover licence agreements, Dolby Atmos support and motion artwork. These are useful features, but they do not all carry the same weight. For an emerging artist, contractual stability, costs, control over the catalogue and the reliability of distribution come first; only then do the more advanced tools come into play.

What is editorial pitching and why is it important?

An editorial pitch is the submission of a track in advance to the editorial teams of streaming platforms or a distributor, with the aim of having it considered for playlists, themed sections, radio or other opportunities for exposure. It does not guarantee results, but it helps to present the track in a professional manner prior to its release.

Quick mini-rankings: the best aggregators according to the 15 most important criteria

To make it easy to read, we have identified the fifteen most important criteria for an emerging independent artist and listed, for each one, the five most compelling aggregators. The score shown refers to the individual criterion, not the service’s overall rating. In the event of a tie, the ranking takes into account the greater overall consistency with the emerging artist’s profile.

Contractual clarity

  1. TuneCore — 90/100
  2. iMusician — 90/100
  3. CD Baby — 88/100
  4. EmuBands — 88/100
  5. LANDR — 88/100

Policies on licences and ownership of master’s programmes

  1. TuneCore — 96/100
  2. CD Baby — 94/100
  3. LANDR — 94/100
  4. iMusician — 94/100
  5. EmuBands — 94/100

Hidden costs or paid options

  1. CD Baby — 90/100
  2. LANDR — 90/100
  3. iMusician — 90/100
  4. EmuBands — 90/100
  5. Horus Music — 88/100

Availability of the online catalogue

  1. CD Baby — 96/100
  2. iMusician — 96/100
  3. EmuBands — 94/100
  4. LANDR — 92/100
  5. AWAL — 88/100

Pricing model

  1. DistroKid — 92/100
  2. Horus Music — 92/100
  3. LANDR — 90/100
  4. Ditto Music — 90/100
  5. TuneCore — 89/100

Percentage deducted from royalties

  1. DistroKid — 98/100
  2. TuneCore — 97/100
  3. Ditto Music — 96/100
  4. EmuBands — 96/100
  5. Horus Music — 96/100

Platforms and areas covered

  1. The Orchard — 96/100
  2. Believe — 96/100
  3. FUGA — 96/100
  4. TuneCore — 95/100
  5. DistroKid — 94/100

Quality of customer service

  1. EmuBands — 90/100
  2. CD Baby — 86/100
  3. Horus Music — 86/100
  4. Record Union — 85/100
  5. TuneCore — 84/100

Option to correct errors after submission

  1. The Orchard — 88/100
  2. TuneCore — 84/100
  3. AWAL — 84/100
  4. Believe — 84/100
  5. EmuBands — 84/100

Metadata check

  1. The Orchard — 90/100
  2. AWAL — 88/100
  3. Believe — 88/100
  4. FUGA — 88/100
  5. IDOL — 88/100

Reliability of publication timelines

  1. TuneCore — 88/100
  2. DistroKid — 88/100
  3. AWAL — 88/100
  4. The Orchard — 88/100
  5. Amuse — 86/100

Delivery times to platforms

  1. DistroKid — 92/100
  2. Amuse — 90/100
  3. TuneCore — 86/100
  4. AWAL — 84/100
  5. Ditto Music — 84/100

Ease of use of the control panel

  1. DistroKid — 94/100
  2. Amuse — 88/100
  3. LANDR — 88/100
  4. TuneCore — 86/100
  5. UnitedMasters — 86/100

Transparency of financial statements

  1. The Orchard — 92/100
  2. FUGA — 92/100
  3. AWAL — 90/100
  4. Believe — 90/100
  5. IDOL — 90/100

Frequency of payments

  1. EmuBands — 92/100
  2. UnitedMasters — 92/100
  3. TuneCore — 82/100
  4. DistroKid — 82/100
  5. AWAL — 82/100

These micro-rankings are useful because they immediately show which services excel in specific areas. However, they should be read carefully: some names, such as The Orchard, Believe, FUGA, IDOL or AWAL, are very strong professionally but do not always represent the most obvious choice for an unknown artist or one without an established structure.

Full ranking of the aggregators assessed

Taking into account the entire evaluation model – that is, all 53 parameters, not just the first fifteen listed above – my weighted ranking is as follows. The scores are expressed on a scale of 1–100 and retain two decimal places to make the differences between very closely matched services clearer.

TuneCore — 84.89 (percentage points with decimal places)
The best overall balance between accessibility, clarity, global distribution, control and professional tools.

Horus Music — 83.14
A robust, standalone solution offering a good balance between price, coverage, support and services.

Symphonic Distribution — 82.56
Particularly interesting for artists, small catalogues or projects looking for a more professional structure.

EmuBands — 82.45
A strong focus on clarity, support, monitoring, reporting and the long-term availability of the catalogue.

iMusician — 82.26
Particularly suitable for European artists seeking organisation, clarity and a stable catalogue.

ONErpm — 81.29
Suitable for those looking not only for distribution, but also for growth tools, analytics and a wider range of services.

LANDR — 80.95
Useful for those who want to integrate distribution, mastering and creative tools into a single ecosystem.

CD Baby — 80.76
Particularly suitable for those who publish less frequently and prefer a more stable model that is less reliant on subscriptions.

AWAL — 80.12
Strong, though accessible, but more selective: suitable for projects that are already promising or more fully developed.

DistroKid — 80.09
Highly effective for those who publish frequently, want speed and simplicity, and are looking for a cost-effective solution for multiple releases a year.

UnitedMasters — 78.96
Of interest to artists who are also interested in brand partnerships, data, promotional tools and independent growth.

Amuse — 78.68
A good solution for emerging artists looking for simplicity, speed, affordability and streamlined management.

The Orchard — 78.44
Very strong professionally, but less suitable as a direct choice for a new artist without a support network.

Believe — 78.29
Well-established in the professional world and in services for artists and record labels, but not always straightforward for individual independent artists.

Ditto Music — 77.87
A good solution for frequent publications, wide distribution and a simple model, though with some limitations in the more sensitive parameters.

IDOL — 77.60
Strong in terms of its professional structure and label services, but less so as an immediate solution for an unknown artist.

Record Union — 75.99
A long-established and reputable service, but in our model it is less competitive than more comprehensive alternatives.

FUGA — 75.49
A very robust B2B infrastructure, but not particularly well suited to the typical profile of an emerging artist who wants to self-publish.

RouteNote — 73.66
An interesting option for those looking for an affordable or flexible solution, but it falls short in terms of control, support and overall robustness.

This ranking should not be taken as the absolute truth, but rather as a practical guide. An artist who releases a single every two years might prefer CD Baby or iMusician; those who release music regularly might find DistroKid, Amuse or Ditto Music a better fit; those looking for more professional services might consider Symphonic, ONErpm or AWAL; and those seeking the best overall balance can start with TuneCore.

The best choice, therefore, isn’t necessarily the top-ranked service. It’s the service that best suits your actual situation: how many releases you put out, how much you want to spend, how much control you want to retain, how much support you need, and how much you want your catalogue to grow over time.

ATTENTION
Anyone wishing to gain a comprehensive overview
the assessment criteria and the detailed marks used
You can click HERE.

Focus on rights: master recordings, composition and related rights

When you publish music, you’re not just dealing with a single right. You’re dealing with at least three areas.

  1. The first is the master, that is, the recording. If you recorded and financed the track yourself, and have not transferred the master to a record label, you are normally the owner or co-owner of the recording. The distributor collects the royalties arising from the use of the master on digital platforms.
  2. The second is the composition. If you have written the music and lyrics, you are the author or composer. These royalties are not always collected by the standard distributor. In Italy, you can manage your copyright through SIAE or other collecting societies, depending on your circumstances. SIAE states that the registration of musical works is free of charge and notes that, from 2026, music registration has been updated with a new copyright management system.
  3. The third area is the related rights, which relate to record producers and performers. In some countries and for certain uses, these may give rise to separate payments. SoundExchange, for example, describes itself as one of the world’s leading organisations for the collection of neighbouring rights and invites creators and rights holders to register in order to receive any royalties due.

The practical conclusion is simple: releasing a track through a distributor does not automatically mean that you have collected every possible form of royalty. Above all, it means that you have distributed and monetised the recording on digital platforms. Copyright, publishing rights and related rights may require separate management.

Single, EP or album: which format to choose

For an emerging artist, it’s often best to start by releasing singles on a regular basis. A single is easier to promote, allows you to focus your message, creates more opportunities for engagement, and enables you to test your audience, playlists, social media and campaigns.

An EP is useful when you want to showcase a broader artistic identity, but without the production and promotional effort involved in an album. An album makes sense when you have a fanbase, a strong concept, a release strategy or a narrative project that justifies a longer listening experience.

From a technical point of view, the process is similar: you upload audio files, the cover art, metadata, the release date and the platforms. However, the promotional effort involved differs. An album requires more lead-up, more materials, more content and often a phased strategy: first single, second single, pre-save, album release, and possibly a focus track following the release.

How long before you should upload the music?

It is not advisable to release content at the last minute. Although some distributors may be able to deliver quickly, a proper release should be uploaded at least three or four weeks in advance. This lead time is needed for technical checks, distributor approval, platform ingestion, the correction of any errors, and promotional activities.

DistroKid states in its documentation that albums may take several days to be reviewed, approved and submitted to the services; once submitted, each platform has its own processing times.

There is also a promotional reason: Spotify allows you to pitch an unreleased track to editors via Spotify for Artists. Spotify states that, if the pitch is submitted at least 7 days before the release date, the track will be added to the artist’s followers’ Release Radar; Spotify for Artists is also the platform’s recommended channel for editorial pitching.

Operating procedure: from the master’s degree to publication

The practical process can be broken down into ten steps.

  1. Firstly: finalise the master. Listen to it on monitors, headphones, a smartphone, in the car and on small speakers. Check the perceived volume (LUFS), distortion, silences, fades, the start, the end and consistency between the tracks (this is the main purpose of the mastering process) whether you’re releasing an EP or an album.
  2. Secondly: prepare the cover art. Use a high-resolution square image, preferably 3000 × 3000 pixels or larger, with no unauthorised elements. Check that the title and artist name, if included, match the metadata exactly.
  3. Thirdly: decide on the artist’s name and definitive titles. Do not change the spelling halfway through the process. “Mario Rossi”, “MarioRossi” and “Mario Rossi Official” may be treated as different identities. Consistency is essential to avoid creating duplicate profiles.
  4. Fourth: choose your distributor. Consider costs, the platforms included, catalogue management, payment terms, customer support, Content ID, royalty splits, the option to change the release, support for artist profiles and the management of any cover versions.
  5. Step 5: Create the release. In the distributor’s panel, enter the title, lead artist, featured artists, songwriters, producers, genre, language, release date, label, copyright, publishing information and distribution territory.
  6. Step 6: Assign or generate the codes. If you already have valid ISRCs, enter them. If you do not have them, let the distributor generate them, if the service supports this. Do not generate new ISRCs for identical tracks that have already been published, unless it is genuinely a new recording.
  7. Seventh: choose your platforms. For global distribution, select all the major DSPs and social music services. In some cases, it may be useful to exclude specific territories, but for an independent artist, global coverage is often the simplest option.
  8. Eighth: set a future release date. Avoid an immediate release if you want to run a promotional campaign, pitch to labels, organise a pre-save, create social media content, send out newsletters and update your artist profiles.
  9. Ninth: check the preview before submitting. This is the most important step: the title, artist name, track order, featured artists, cover art, audio, date, explicit/non-explicit rating, songwriters and label must all be correct. Once submitted, any changes may take days or weeks to be processed.
  10. Step 10: Monitor the release. Once approved, the release will start to appear as an upcoming release or upcoming content in some artist dashboards. Check that it hasn’t ended up on the wrong profile and that the links are working.

Artist profiles: what to do as soon as the music is delivered

After submission or publication, you must claim and set up your artist profiles. Spotify for Artists allows you to manage your profile, access statistics and submit unreleased tracks to editors. Apple Music for Artists allows you to claim your page, monitor performance and customise your artist image; Apple specifies that content must have been live on Apple Music for at least five working days before you can claim your page.

Amazon Music for Artists allows you to claim your profile, access statistics and manage certain aspects of your artist presence. YouTube, on the other hand, uses the concept of an Official Artist Channel: the official channel brings together the artist’s music, videos, brand and online presence. YouTube states that, to apply for one, you must go through a label, distributor or Music Service Partner.

Deezer for Creators also allows you to customise your profile, add a bio and photos, highlight content and view listening statistics.

Pre-saves, pitching and promotion ahead of the release

The release doesn’t begin on the day the track comes out. It begins several weeks beforehand.

As soon as you have the links or the release has been recognised by the services, you can create a smart link or pre-save page. This helps to generate interest ahead of the release and provides the public with a single link that works across all platforms. It isn’t essential, but it does help with communication.

Next, you need to prepare the content: audio teasers, short vertical videos, images, behind-the-scenes footage, song lyrics, an explanation of the meaning, clips of you playing the piano or in the studio, visualisers, newsletters, blog posts and press releases. For TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts, it’s a good idea to think in advance about 10–20 seconds of the track’s standout moments: the intro, the chorus, a memorable line, the drop, or an instrumental section.

Editorial pitches should be kept concise and precise. There’s no need to write “this track is a hit”. Instead, explain the genre, mood, instruments, influences, the track’s backstory, any collaborators, planned promotional activities, gigs, target audience and artistic context. Spotify allows you to submit unreleased tracks via Spotify for Artists; Apple Music has a tool called Apple Music Pitch for sharing details of upcoming releases with editorial teams, with the potential for consideration for playlists, radio, genre pages and global editorial sections.

What is an audio teaser?

An audio teaser is a short excerpt from a track, designed to give a preview of its style ahead of its release. It serves to pique the public’s curiosity and build anticipation for the release, without making the whole track available.

The day of release

On the day of release, you need to check everything. Look for the track on Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Deezer and the main platforms. Check that it’s on the right artist profile, that the title and cover art are correct, that the guest artists are credited correctly, that the track isn’t duplicated and that the links work.

Then update your bio, website, newsletter, social media profiles, links in your bio, any press kits and dedicated pages. If you have an official website, create a page for the release featuring the cover art, description, credits, lyrics, links to listen to the track, any accompanying video, the press release and press contact details.

Don’t just publish a generic post. Put together a sequence: release announcement, explanation of the track, live performance, technical details, thanks to contributors, an extract from the lyrics, a short video, a call to save the track, and any reviews or playlists it has featured on.

After launch: analytics and optimisation

In the first few days, keep an eye on the figures, but don’t get too hung up on them. Initial streaming figures can depend heavily on your direct communication. After a week or two, the figures become more useful: the most active platforms, cities, countries, sources, playlists, save rates, follower growth and engagement with social media content.

Spotify for Artists, Apple Music for Artists, Amazon Music for Artists and Deezer for Creators are designed precisely to analyse these metrics. Apple Music for Artists, for example, claims to offer insights into performance on Apple Music, iTunes, Shazam and other Apple platforms.

Use the data to decide where to invest. If you spot unexpected streams in a particular city or country, you can create localised content, targeted campaigns or specific press releases. If a track performs better on YouTube than on Spotify, you might want to focus on videos, live sessions or lyric videos. If the saves are good but the streams are low, perhaps people like the track but it hasn’t been promoted enough.

Common mistakes to avoid

  1. The first mistake is uploading the music too late. Even if the distributor promises fast delivery, you won’t have time to sort out any problems.
  2. The second mistake is to use inconsistent metadata: random capitalisation, featured artists listed in the title rather than in the ‘artist’ field, missing authors, incorrectly listed versions, and artist names written in different ways.
  3. The third mistake is to publish a cover that does not comply with the requirements. A cover that is visually appealing but technically incorrect may delay or prevent publication.
  4. The fourth mistake is to ignore artist profiles. A press release that has been published correctly but ends up on the wrong profile loses its impact, credibility and data.
  5. The fifth mistake is to believe that the distributor handles promotion. The distributor simply delivers the music. Some offer promotional tools, but these are no substitute for strategy, content, audience, communication and consistency.
  6. The sixth mistake is to think that “being on Spotify” automatically means getting plays. Platforms make music available; they do not guarantee attention. Promotion remains the responsibility of the artist, their management or their record label.
  7. The seventh mistake is failing to clarify agreements between collaborators before publication. Master shares, authors’ shares, splits, producer points, fees, licences and authorisations must be defined in advance, not once the track starts to generate revenue.

Conclusion

Publishing music globally on streaming services is now technically feasible, but it is no trivial matter. A digital distributor makes it possible to reach dozens or hundreds of platforms in just a few steps, but the quality of the result depends on thorough preparation: a correct master, compliant cover art, accurate metadata, sorted rights, appropriate timing, configured artist profiles and consistent promotion.

The most useful rule is this: don’t treat the release as the end of the creative process, but as the start of the track’s public life. A well-prepared release isn’t just “online”: it’s discoverable, correctly attributed, monetisable, presentable, promotable and ready to build up a catalogue over time.

METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX

Ratings, criteria and comparison of digital aggregators

A weighted assessment designed for emerging independent artists: not an absolute ranking, but a practical tool for choosing the most suitable service.

How to read this appendix

This appendix explains the method used to compare the digital aggregators mentioned in the article. The assessment is designed for a specific profile: up-and-coming independent artist, without the backing of a record label, keen to release original music on the major global platforms at affordable costs, with good protection for their catalogue, clear contractual terms and sufficient tools to grow.

Each aggregator was assessed on 53 parameters. Each parameter has been assigned a weight from 1 to 100, based on its importance to an emerging artist. In turn, each aggregator received a rating from 1 to 100 for each parameter.

The final score is therefore not a simple average. It is a weighted assessment: the most important parameters have the greatest impact on the final result.

Formula used:

aggregator’s score for parameter × weight of parameter

Then:

sum of all weighted scores

Finally, to make the result easier to read:

final score on a scale of 1–100

The final scores are shown to two decimal places to better highlight the differences between scores that are very close.

Limitations of the method

This assessment does not set out to determine which is the absolute best aggregator. A service may be excellent for a record label, but unsuitable for an emerging artist. Similarly, a very simple aggregator may be ideal for those who release music frequently, but less suitable for those seeking advanced professional services.

Some criteria are objective, such as price, commission rates, supported platforms, and the availability of Content ID or royalty-splitting tools. Others are more subjective, such as clarity, ease of use, customer support, reputation, and the balance between simplicity and professional control.

The terms and conditions of service providers may change. Before choosing a service, it is always advisable to check prices, terms, platform coverage and the latest terms and conditions on the official websites.

Parameters used and weighting applied

  1. Contractual clarity — weighting 100
  2. Policies on licences and ownership of master recordings — weighting 99
  3. Hidden costs or paid options — weight 98
  4. Availability of the online catalogue — weight 97
  5. Price model — weight 96
  6. Percentage withheld from royalties — weighting 95
  7. Platforms and areas covered — weight 94
  8. Quality of customer service — weighting 93
  9. Option to correct errors after submission — weight 92
  10. Metadata check — weight 91
  11. Reliability of publication timelines — weighting 90
  12. Delivery speed to platforms — weight 89
  13. Ease of use of the control panel — weight 88
  14. Transparency of financial statements — weighting 87
  15. Frequency of payments — weighting 86
  16. Artist profile management — weight 85
  17. Support for Spotify for Artists — weight 84
  18. Distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook — weight 83
  19. YouTube Content ID monetisation — weighting 82
  20. Available payment methods — weight 81
  21. Minimum payment threshold — weight 80
  22. ISRC code management — weight 79
  23. Statistical reports and analytics — weight 78
  24. Ease of catalogue transfer — weight 77
  25. UPC/EAN code management — weight 76
  26. Data access by country, platform and track — weighting 75
  27. Scalability for future catalogues — weight 74
  28. Service reputation — weighting 73
  29. Support for Apple Music for Artists — weight 72
  30. Distributor’s business stability — weighting 71
  31. Takedown techniques — weight 70
  32. Pre-save tools — weight 69
  33. Smart links and promotional pages — weight 68
  34. Quality of technical documentation — weight 67
  35. Exclusivity clauses — weight 66
  36. Support for the YouTube Official Artist Channel — weight 65
  37. Payment currency — weight 64
  38. The balance between simplicity and professional control — weight 63
  39. Managing multiple artists or projects — weight 62
  40. Support for singles, EPs and albums — weight 61
  41. Support for instrumental releases, live recordings, remixes and edits — weighting 60
  42. Royalty split between contributors — weighting 59
  43. Compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies — weight 58
  44. Additional marketing services — weight 57
  45. Editorial pitch — weight 56
  46. Interface and support language — weight 55
  47. Publishing administration — weight 54
  48. Collection of publishing royalties — weight 53
  49. Management of related rights — weighting 52
  50. Functions for independent labels — weight 45
  51. Cover song management — weighting 40
  52. Support for music videos — weight 35
  53. Support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio — score: 20

Analytical assessment of aggregators

TuneCore

Weighted final score: 84.89

TuneCore offers the best overall balance for emerging independent artists. It excels in terms of transparency, ownership of master recordings, global reach, professional tools, social media distribution and publishing features.

Contractual clarity: 90; policies on licensing and ownership of master recordings: 96; hidden costs or paid options: 86; online catalogue retention: 82; pricing model: 89; royalty deduction rate: 97; platforms and territories covered: 95; quality of customer support: 84; ability to correct errors after submission: 84; control over metadata: 86; reliability of release timelines: 88; speed of delivery to platforms: 86; ease of use of the control panel: 86; transparency of reports: 84; frequency of payments: 82; artist profile management: 86; support for Spotify for Artists: 88; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 92; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 86; available payment methods: 82; minimum payment threshold: 78; ISRC code management: 88; statistical reports and analytics: 86; ease of catalogue transfer: 72; UPC/EAN code management: 88; access to data by country, platform and track: 84; scalability for future catalogues: 86; service reputation: 88; support for Apple Music for Artists: 82; distributor’s business stability: 90; takedown procedures: 80; pre-save tools: 84; smart links and promotional pages: 84; quality of technical documentation: 88; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 80; payment currency: 80; balance between simplicity and professional control: 86; management of multiple artists or projects: 84; support for singles, EPs and albums: 92; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 86; split royalties between collaborators: 82; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 68; additional marketing services: 76; editorial pitching: 76; interface and support language: 78; publishing administration: 90; collection of publishing royalties: 86; management of neighbouring rights: 70; features for independent labels: 82; management of cover versions: 85; support for music videos: 65; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 65.

Horus Music

Weighted final score: 83.14

Horus Music stands out as a solid independent solution, offering a good balance between costs, coverage, royalties, services, support and flexibility. It is an attractive option for those seeking comprehensive distribution without necessarily having to rely on the best-known names in the market.

Contractual clarity: 86; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 88; online catalogue longevity: 72; pricing model: 92; royalty retention rate: 96; platforms and territories covered: 94; quality of customer support: 86; ability to correct errors after submission: 80; control over metadata: 82; reliability of release timelines: 84; speed of delivery to platforms: 82; ease of use of the control panel: 84; transparency of reports: 82; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 84; support for Spotify for Artists: 90; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 92; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 88; available payment methods: 76; minimum payment threshold: 72; ISRC code management: 90; statistical reports and analytics: 84; ease of catalogue transfer: 75; UPC/EAN code management: 90; access to data by country, platform and track: 84; scalability for future catalogues: 84; service reputation: 78; support for Apple Music for Artists: 78; distributor’s business stability: 76; takedown procedures: 78; pre-save tools: 88; smart links and promotional pages: 88; quality of technical documentation: 82; exclusivity clauses: 88; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 78; payment currency: 74; balance between simplicity and professional control: 86; management of multiple artists or projects: 88; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 84; split royalties between collaborators: 88; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 70; additional marketing services: 82; editorial pitching: 78; interface and support language: 78; publishing administration: 82; collection of publishing royalties: 78; management of neighbouring rights: 60; features for independent labels: 86; management of cover versions: 78; support for music videos: 80; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 50.

Symphonic Distribution

Weighted final score: 82.56

Symphonic Distribution is particularly well-suited to projects seeking a more professional structure than simple self-service distribution. It excels in scalability, label features, professional tools, video monetisation and additional services.

Contractual clarity: 84; licensing and master ownership policies: 92; hidden costs or paid options: 84; online catalogue retention: 82; pricing model: 88; royalty retention rate: 96; platforms and territories covered: 90; quality of customer support: 82; ability to correct errors after submission: 80; control over metadata: 84; reliability of release timelines: 84; speed of delivery to platforms: 82; ease of use of the control panel: 82; transparency of reports: 84; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 84; support for Spotify for Artists: 82; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 88; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 84; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 72; ISRC code management: 86; statistical reports and analytics: 84; ease of catalogue transfer: 74; UPC/EAN code management: 86; access to data by country, platform and track: 84; scalability for future catalogues: 90; service reputation: 84; support for Apple Music for Artists: 78; distributor’s business stability: 86; takedown procedures: 78; pre-save tools: 82; smart links and promotional pages: 82; quality of technical documentation: 82; exclusivity clauses: 82; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 88; payment currency: 76; balance between simplicity and professional control: 82; management of multiple artists or projects: 92; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 84; split royalties between collaborators: 86; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 62; additional marketing services: 86; editorial pitching: 84; interface and support language: 76; publishing administration: 68; collection of publishing royalties: 64; management of neighbouring rights: 62; features for independent labels: 92; management of cover versions: 78; support for music videos: 88; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 60.

EmuBands

Weighted final score: 82.45

EmuBands is highly competitive in terms of clarity, customer support, catalogue stability, payment and operational control. It is an attractive solution for those seeking a well-organised and focused independent distribution channel.

Contractual clarity: 88; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 90; online catalogue longevity: 94; pricing model: 82; royalty retention rate: 96; platforms and territories covered: 88; quality of customer support: 90; ability to correct errors after submission: 84; control over metadata: 86; reliability of release timelines: 84; speed of delivery to platforms: 82; ease of use of the control panel: 84; transparency of reports: 86; frequency of payments: 92; artist profile management: 84; support for Spotify for Artists: 90; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 88; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 84; available payment methods: 80; minimum payment threshold: 78; ISRC code management: 90; statistical reports and analytics: 86; ease of catalogue transfer: 82; UPC/EAN code management: 90; access to data by country, platform and track: 84; scalability for future catalogues: 82; service reputation: 84; support for Apple Music for Artists: 78; distributor’s business stability: 82; takedown procedures: 86; pre-save tools: 78; smart links and promotional pages: 78; quality of technical documentation: 86; exclusivity clauses: 92; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 74; payment currency: 76; balance between simplicity and professional control: 86; management of multiple artists or projects: 80; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 86; royalty splits between collaborators: 70; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 62; additional marketing services: 70; editorial pitching: 70; interface and support language: 82; publishing administration: 55; collection of publishing royalties: 52; management of neighbouring rights: 50; features for independent labels: 76; cover song management: 68; support for music videos: 70; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 45.

iMusician

Weighted final score: 82.26

iMusician is particularly appealing to European artists and to those seeking clarity, stability, control and a well-organised approach. It is also suitable for projects requiring distribution on more specialised platforms or in European markets.

Contractual clarity: 90; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 90; online catalogue longevity: 96; pricing model: 86; royalty retention rate: 90; platforms and territories covered: 88; quality of customer support: 84; ability to correct errors after submission: 80; control over metadata: 82; reliability of release timelines: 82; speed of delivery to platforms: 80; ease of use of the control panel: 82; transparency of reports: 84; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 78; support for Spotify for Artists: 78; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 88; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 86; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 75; ISRC code management: 86; statistical reports and analytics: 82; ease of catalogue transfer: 86; UPC/EAN code management: 86; access to data by country, platform and track: 82; scalability for future catalogues: 82; service reputation: 84; support for Apple Music for Artists: 74; distributor’s business stability: 84; takedown procedures: 82; pre-save tools: 86; smart links and promotional pages: 86; quality of technical documentation: 84; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 72; payment currency: 82; balance between simplicity and professional control: 84; management of multiple artists or projects: 78; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 82; split royalties between collaborators: 76; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 82; additional marketing services: 76; editorial pitching: 72; interface and support language: 88; publishing administration: 70; collection of publishing royalties: 68; management of neighbouring rights: 58; features for independent labels: 70; management of cover versions: 86; support for music videos: 55; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 60.

ONErpm

Weighted final score: 81.29

ONErpm is ideal for those who want to go beyond simple distribution. It offers an attractive proposition for artists seeking analytics, marketing, growth services, broader catalogue management and potential career development.

Contractual clarity: 78; policies on licensing and ownership of master recordings: 90; hidden costs or paid options: 74; online catalogue retention: 78; pricing model: 80; royalty retention percentage: 76; platforms and territories covered: 92; quality of customer support: 82; ability to correct errors after submission: 80; control over metadata: 82; reliability of release schedules: 82; speed of delivery to platforms: 82; ease of use of the control panel: 80; transparency of reports: 84; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 82; support for Spotify for Artists: 82; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 90; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 88; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 70; ISRC code management: 84; statistical reports and analytics: 86; ease of catalogue transfer: 70; UPC/EAN code management: 84; access to data by country, platform and track: 86; scalability for future catalogues: 88; service reputation: 82; support for Apple Music for Artists: 76; distributor’s business stability: 84; takedown procedures: 76; pre-save tools: 82; smart links and promotional pages: 82; quality of technical documentation: 78; exclusivity clauses: 78; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 82; payment currency: 76; balance between simplicity and professional control: 80; management of multiple artists or projects: 86; support for singles, EPs and albums: 88; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 82; split royalties between collaborators: 86; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 65; additional marketing services: 88; editorial pitching: 86; interface and support language: 72; publishing administration: 86; collection of publishing royalties: 82; management of neighbouring rights: 80; features for independent labels: 90; management of cover versions: 72; support for music videos: 85; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 70.

LANDR

Weighted final score: 80.95

LANDR is an attractive option for anyone looking to integrate distribution, mastering and creative tools into a single ecosystem. It excels in simplicity, clarity and additional services that are useful to independent musicians.

Contractual clarity: 88; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 90; online catalogue retention: 92; pricing model: 90; royalty deduction rate: 95; platforms and territories covered: 92; quality of customer support: 82; ability to correct errors after submission: 78; control over metadata: 82; reliability of release schedules: 85; speed of delivery to platforms: 82; ease of use of the dashboard: 88; transparency of reports: 80; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 80; Spotify for Artists support: 82; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 90; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 88; available payment methods: 76; minimum payment threshold: 74; ISRC code management: 84; statistical reports and analytics: 82; ease of catalogue transfer: 75; UPC/EAN code management: 84; access to data by country, platform and track: 80; scalability for future catalogues: 80; service reputation: 82; support for Apple Music for Artists: 76; distributor’s business stability: 82; takedown procedures: 75; pre-save tools: 86; smart links and promotional pages: 84; quality of technical documentation: 86; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 75; payment currency: 72; balance between simplicity and professional control: 88; management of multiple artists or projects: 75; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 82; split royalties between collaborators: 78; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 60; additional marketing services: 76; editorial pitching: 70; interface and support language: 70; publishing administration: 60; collection of publishing royalties: 58; management of neighbouring rights: 50; features for independent labels: 68; cover song management: 82; support for music videos: 55; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 55.

CD Baby

Weighted final score: 80.76

CD Baby is particularly well-suited to artists who release music less frequently and prefer a more stable model that is less tied to an annual subscription. It excels in terms of catalogue longevity, transparency and reputation.

Contractual clarity: 88; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 90; online catalogue longevity: 96; pricing model: 86; royalty retention rate: 84; platforms and territories covered: 92; quality of customer support: 86; ability to correct errors after submission: 80; control over metadata: 82; reliability of release timelines: 82; speed of delivery to platforms: 78; ease of use of the control panel: 78; transparency of reports: 86; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 78; support for Spotify for Artists: 78; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 86; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 82; available payment methods: 80; minimum payment threshold: 75; ISRC code management: 86; statistical reports and analytics: 78; ease of catalogue transfer: 82; UPC/EAN code management: 86; access to data by country, platform and track: 76; scalability for future catalogues: 76; service reputation: 90; support for Apple Music for Artists: 72; distributor’s business stability: 92; takedown procedures: 80; pre-save tools: 74; smart links and promotional pages: 76; quality of technical documentation: 84; exclusivity clauses: 92; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 72; payment currency: 78; balance between simplicity and professional control: 82; management of multiple artists or projects: 72; support for singles, EPs and albums: 88; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 78; royalty splits between collaborators: 62; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 68; additional marketing services: 72; editorial pitching: 68; interface and support language: 78; publishing administration: 82; collection of publishing royalties: 80; management of neighbouring rights: 62; features for independent labels: 70; management of cover versions: 82; support for music videos: 55; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 45.

AWAL

Weighted final score: 80.12

AWAL is very strong from a professional point of view, but it is not your typical self-service platform open to everyone. It is suited to projects that already show promise, with a more structured strategy and growth prospects that go beyond simply self-publishing.

Contractual clarity: 55; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 68; online catalogue retention: 88; pricing model: 50; royalty deduction rate: 78; platforms and territories covered: 94; quality of customer support: 65; ability to correct errors after submission: 84; control over metadata: 88; reliability of release schedules: 88; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the control panel: 45; transparency of reports: 90; frequency of payments: 82; artist profile management: 90; support for Spotify for Artists: 82; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 90; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 90; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 78; ISRC code management: 88; statistical reports and analytics: 92; ease of catalogue transfer: 50; UPC/EAN code management: 88; access to data by country, platform and track: 92; scalability for future catalogues: 88; service reputation: 90; support for Apple Music for Artists: 82; distributor’s business stability: 94; takedown procedures: 78; pre-save tools: 86; smart links and promotional pages: 84; quality of technical documentation: 82; exclusivity clauses: 50; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 88; payment currency: 82; balance between simplicity and professional control: 58; management of multiple artists or projects: 88; support for singles, EPs and albums: 88; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 86; split royalties between collaborators: 72; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 70; additional marketing services: 94; editorial pitching: 92; interface and support language: 80; publishing administration: 78; collection of publishing royalties: 76; management of neighbouring rights: 82; features for independent labels: 92; management of cover versions: 60; support for music videos: 88; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 75.

DistroKid

Weighted final score: 80.09

DistroKid is a great choice for those who release music frequently and are looking for speed, simplicity and a cost-effective model for multiple releases a year. It is less strong when it comes to factors such as catalogue retention, additional costs and customer support.

Contractual clarity: 80; licensing and master ownership policies: 92; hidden costs or paid options: 58; online catalogue longevity: 62; pricing model: 92; royalty retention rate: 98; platforms and territories covered: 94; quality of customer support: 68; ability to correct errors after submission: 74; control over metadata: 80; reliability of release schedules: 88; speed of delivery to platforms: 92; ease of use of the dashboard: 94; transparency of reports: 80; frequency of payments: 82; artist profile management: 88; Spotify for Artists support: 94; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 92; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 72; available payment methods: 84; minimum payment threshold: 75; ISRC code management: 88; statistical reports and analytics: 82; ease of catalogue transfer: 70; UPC/EAN code management: 88; access to data by country, platform and track: 82; scalability for future catalogues: 88; service reputation: 92; support for Apple Music for Artists: 82; distributor’s business stability: 88; takedown procedures: 70; pre-save tools: 86; smart links and promotional pages: 84; quality of technical documentation: 78; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 82; payment currency: 86; balance between simplicity and professional control: 84; management of multiple artists or projects: 82; support for singles, EPs and albums: 92; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 86; split royalties between collaborators: 84; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 60; additional marketing services: 60; editorial pitching: 68; interface and support language: 82; publishing administration: 45; collection of publishing royalties: 42; management of neighbouring rights: 40; features for independent labels: 78; management of cover versions: 72; support for music videos: 55; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 65.

UnitedMasters

Weighted final score: 78.96

UnitedMasters is of interest to independent artists who are also keen on brand partnerships, data, promotion and growing their public profile. It is less relevant for those seeking only traditional, highly controlled distribution.

Contractual clarity: 80; licensing and master ownership policies: 92; hidden costs or paid options: 76; online catalogue retention: 76; pricing model: 78; royalty deduction rate: 88; platforms and territories covered: 76; quality of customer support: 78; ability to correct errors after submission: 76; control over metadata: 80; reliability of release schedules: 82; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the dashboard: 86; transparency of reports: 82; frequency of payments: 92; artist profile management: 82; Spotify for Artists support: 80; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 92; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 70; available payment methods: 86; minimum payment threshold: 80; ISRC code management: 82; statistical reports and analytics: 86; ease of catalogue transfer: 68; UPC/EAN code management: 82; access to data by country, platform and track: 86; scalability for future catalogues: 78; service reputation: 84; support for Apple Music for Artists: 76; distributor’s business stability: 86; takedown procedures: 70; pre-save tools: 86; smart links and promotional pages: 86; quality of technical documentation: 80; exclusivity clauses: 84; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 74; payment currency: 84; balance between simplicity and professional control: 84; management of multiple artists or projects: 70; support for singles, EPs and albums: 88; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 80; split royalties between collaborators: 70; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 60; additional marketing services: 88; editorial pitching: 82; interface and support language: 80; publishing administration: 60; collection of publishing royalties: 58; management of neighbouring rights: 52; features for independent labels: 65; management of cover versions: 60; support for music videos: 50; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 45.

Amuse

Weighted final score: 78.68

Amuse is a good option for emerging artists looking for simplicity, speed, affordability and streamlined management. It doesn’t rank among the top choices because our model also prioritises control, support, catalogue stability and advanced professional features; however, for those who prioritise immediacy and value for money, it remains one of the most competitive options.

Contractual clarity: 82; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 76; online catalogue longevity: 78; pricing model: 88; royalty retention rate: 95; platforms and territories covered: 88; quality of customer support: 72; ability to correct errors after submission: 74; control over metadata: 80; reliability of release timelines: 86; speed of delivery to platforms: 90; ease of use of the dashboard: 88; transparency of reports: 82; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 82; support for Spotify for Artists: 84; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 88; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 74; available payment methods: 76; minimum payment threshold: 70; ISRC code management: 82; statistical reports and analytics: 82; ease of catalogue transfer: 72; UPC/EAN code management: 82; access to data by country, platform and track: 80; scalability for future catalogues: 78; service reputation: 78; support for Apple Music for Artists: 74; distributor’s business stability: 78; takedown procedures: 72; pre-save tools: 84; smart links and promotional pages: 84; quality of technical documentation: 76; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 72; payment currency: 72; balance between simplicity and professional control: 84; management of multiple artists or projects: 80; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 82; split royalties between collaborators: 86; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 60; additional marketing services: 70; editorial pitching: 68; interface and support language: 72; publishing administration: 62; collection of publishing royalties: 60; management of neighbouring rights: 48; features for independent labels: 78; cover song management: 62; support for music videos: 50; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 45.

The Orchard

Weighted final score: 78.44

The Orchard is a very strong professional organisation, but it is not designed as an immediate solution for a new artist looking to self-release their music. The score is therefore affected by its lower accessibility for this particular group, whilst remaining high in terms of services, infrastructure and professional expertise.

Contractual clarity: 40; licensing and master ownership policies: 90; hidden costs or paid options: 45; online catalogue retention: 68; pricing model: 30; royalty retention percentage: 50; platforms and territories covered: 96; quality of customer support: 65; ability to correct errors after submission: 88; control over metadata: 90; reliability of release timelines: 88; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the dashboard: 40; transparency of reports: 92; frequency of payments: 82; artist profile management: 92; support for Spotify for Artists: 80; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 90; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 94; available payment methods: 80; minimum payment threshold: 78; ISRC code management: 90; statistical reports and analytics: 94; ease of catalogue transfer: 45; UPC/EAN code management: 90; access to data by country, platform and track: 94; scalability for future catalogues: 92; service reputation: 94; support for Apple Music for Artists: 84; distributor’s business stability: 96; takedown procedures: 80; pre-save tools: 88; smart links and promotional pages: 86; quality of technical documentation: 84; exclusivity clauses: 42; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 92; payment currency: 82; balance between simplicity and professional control: 50; management of multiple artists or projects: 94; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 88; royalty splits between collaborators: 78; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 70; additional marketing services: 96; editorial pitching: 94; interface and support language: 82; publishing administration: 82; collection of publishing royalties: 80; management of neighbouring rights: 88; features for independent labels: 96; cover song management: 55; support for music videos: 94; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 80.

Believe

Weighted final score: 78.29

Believe is a strong player in the professional sector and in services for artists and labels, but it is not always the most obvious choice for an unknown artist who simply wants to upload their first release.

Contractual clarity: 45; licensing and master ownership policies: 90; hidden costs or paid options: 50; online catalogue retention: 70; pricing model: 35; royalty deduction rate: 55; platforms and territories covered: 96; quality of customer support: 64; ability to correct errors after submission: 84; control over metadata: 88; reliability of release timelines: 86; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the control panel: 42; transparency of reports: 90; frequency of payments: 80; artist profile management: 90; support for Spotify for Artists: 80; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 90; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 90; available payment methods: 80; minimum payment threshold: 78; ISRC code management: 88; statistical reports and analytics: 92; ease of catalogue transfer: 48; UPC/EAN code management: 88; access to data by country, platform and track: 92; scalability for future catalogues: 92; service reputation: 92; support for Apple Music for Artists: 84; distributor’s business stability: 94; takedown procedures: 80; pre-save tools: 86; smart links and promotional pages: 84; quality of technical documentation: 82; exclusivity clauses: 45; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 88; payment currency: 82; balance between simplicity and professional control: 52; management of multiple artists or projects: 92; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 88; split royalties between collaborators: 76; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 72; additional marketing services: 94; editorial pitching: 92; interface and support language: 82; publishing administration: 84; collection of publishing royalties: 82; management of neighbouring rights: 86; features for independent labels: 96; management of cover songs: 60; support for music videos: 90; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 78.

Ditto Music

Weighted final score: 77.87

Ditto Music is a well-known and accessible solution for frequent releases, offering good distribution and a straightforward model. In our assessment, it falls slightly short of other services in the most critical areas, such as customer support, clarity and overall stability.

Contractual clarity: 78; licensing and master ownership policies: 92; hidden costs or paid options: 70; online catalogue longevity: 74; pricing model: 90; royalty retention rate: 96; platforms and territories covered: 94; quality of customer support: 65; ability to correct errors after submission: 72; control over metadata: 78; reliability of release timelines: 82; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the control panel: 85; transparency of reports: 76; frequency of payments: 76; artist profile management: 78; support for Spotify for Artists: 80; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 92; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 78; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 70; ISRC code management: 84; statistical reports and analytics: 76; ease of catalogue transfer: 68; UPC/EAN code management: 84; access to data by country, platform and track: 74; scalability for future catalogues: 78; service reputation: 76; support for Apple Music for Artists: 72; distributor’s business stability: 76; takedown procedures: 70; pre-save tools: 82; smart links and promotional pages: 82; quality of technical documentation: 72; exclusivity clauses: 88; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 75; payment currency: 76; balance between simplicity and professional control: 80; management of multiple artists or projects: 80; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 82; split royalties between collaborators: 82; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 60; additional marketing services: 72; editorial pitching: 70; interface and support language: 75; publishing administration: 72; collection of publishing royalties: 68; management of neighbouring rights: 55; features for independent labels: 82; management of cover versions: 70; support for music videos: 55; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 50.

IDOL

Weighted final score: 77.60

IDOL is strong in terms of its professional structure and label services, but less suited to the independent release of an unknown artist. It is more appealing for selected projects, curated catalogues and organisations with greater experience in the music industry.

Contractual clarity: 50; licensing and master ownership policies: 92; hidden costs or paid options: 55; online catalogue retention: 74; pricing model: 40; royalty retention percentage: 55; platforms and territories covered: 94; quality of customer support: 68; ability to correct errors after submission: 84; control over metadata: 88; reliability of release timelines: 86; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the control panel: 45; transparency of reports: 90; frequency of payments: 80; artist profile management: 88; support for Spotify for Artists: 78; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 88; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 88; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 76; ISRC code management: 88; statistical reports and analytics: 90; ease of catalogue transfer: 50; UPC/EAN code management: 88; access to data by country, platform and track: 90; scalability for future catalogues: 88; service reputation: 90; support for Apple Music for Artists: 82; distributor’s business stability: 88; takedown procedures: 78; pre-save tools: 84; smart links and promotional pages: 82; quality of technical documentation: 82; exclusivity clauses: 48; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 86; payment currency: 80; balance between simplicity and professional control: 55; management of multiple artists or projects: 90; support for singles, EPs and albums: 88; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 86; split royalties between collaborators: 74; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 70; additional marketing services: 92; editorial pitching: 90; interface and support language: 80; publishing administration: 76; collection of publishing royalties: 74; management of neighbouring rights: 80; features for independent labels: 94; management of cover versions: 55; support for music videos: 85; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 70.

Record Union

Weighted final score: 75.99

Record Union is a long-established and reputable service, but in our assessment it is less competitive than alternatives that are more comprehensive or up-to-date in terms of tools and ancillary services.

Contractual clarity: 84; licensing and master ownership policies: 92; hidden costs or paid options: 80; online catalogue retention: 82; pricing model: 74; royalty deduction rate: 78; platforms and territories covered: 78; quality of customer support: 85; ability to correct errors after submission: 76; control over metadata: 78; reliability of release schedules: 80; speed of delivery to platforms: 78; ease of use of the dashboard: 80; transparency of reports: 80; frequency of payments: 74; artist profile management: 80; Spotify for Artists support: 88; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 82; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 64; available payment methods: 76; minimum payment threshold: 70; ISRC code management: 84; statistical reports and analytics: 78; ease of catalogue transfer: 74; UPC/EAN code management: 84; access to data by country, platform and track: 76; scalability for future catalogues: 76; service reputation: 84; support for Apple Music for Artists: 72; distributor’s business stability: 86; takedown procedures: 80; pre-save tools: 76; smart links and promotional pages: 86; quality of technical documentation: 82; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 68; payment currency: 74; balance between simplicity and professional control: 80; management of multiple artists or projects: 70; support for singles, EPs and albums: 86; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 78; split royalties between collaborators: 60; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 62; additional marketing services: 64; editorial pitching: 60; interface and support language: 72; publishing administration: 55; collection of publishing royalties: 52; management of neighbouring rights: 48; features for independent labels: 58; cover song management: 70; support for music videos: 40; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 35.

FUGA

Weighted final score: 75.49

FUGA is a very robust B2B platform, but it is not particularly well suited to emerging artists looking to self-publish. Its score is affected by its limited accessibility for the article’s target audience, despite being very strong from a technical and professional standpoint.

Contractual clarity: 35; licensing and master ownership policies: 88; hidden costs or paid options: 40; online catalogue longevity: 68; pricing model: 20; royalty retention rate: 45; platforms and territories covered: 96; quality of customer support: 55; ability to correct errors after submission: 84; control over metadata: 88; reliability of release timelines: 86; speed of delivery to platforms: 84; ease of use of the control panel: 30; transparency of reports: 92; frequency of payments: 78; artist profile management: 82; support for Spotify for Artists: 76; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 88; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 94; available payment methods: 78; minimum payment threshold: 76; ISRC code management: 90; statistical reports and analytics: 94; ease of catalogue transfer: 40; UPC/EAN code management: 90; access to data by country, platform and track: 94; scalability for future catalogues: 96; service reputation: 90; support for Apple Music for Artists: 80; distributor’s business stability: 92; takedown procedures: 82; pre-save tools: 82; smart links and promotional pages: 80; quality of technical documentation: 86; exclusivity clauses: 38; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 88; payment currency: 80; balance between simplicity and professional control: 40; management of multiple artists or projects: 96; support for singles, EPs and albums: 90; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 88; split royalties between collaborators: 76; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 70; additional marketing services: 90; editorial pitching: 88; interface and support language: 76; publishing administration: 80; collection of publishing royalties: 78; management of neighbouring rights: 92; features for independent labels: 98; management of cover songs: 50; support for music videos: 90; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 70.

RouteNote

Weighted final score: 73.66

RouteNote is an attractive option for those looking for a cost-effective or flexible solution, particularly thanks to the option of free or commission-based models. However, in our assessment, it scores lower in terms of control, support, overall stability and professional services.

Contractual clarity: 80; licensing and master ownership policies: 94; hidden costs or paid options: 86; online catalogue longevity: 86; pricing model: 88; royalty retention rate: 82; platforms and territories covered: 76; quality of customer support: 66; ability to correct errors after submission: 72; control over metadata: 76; reliability of release timelines: 78; speed of delivery to platforms: 76; ease of use of the control panel: 78; transparency of reports: 76; frequency of payments: 72; artist profile management: 72; support for Spotify for Artists: 74; distribution on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook: 84; YouTube Content ID monetisation: 78; available payment methods: 74; minimum payment threshold: 68; ISRC code management: 82; statistical reports and analytics: 74; ease of catalogue transfer: 82; UPC/EAN code management: 82; access to data by country, platform and track: 72; scalability for future catalogues: 74; service reputation: 78; support for Apple Music for Artists: 70; distributor’s business stability: 80; takedown procedures: 82; pre-save tools: 60; smart links and promotional pages: 60; quality of technical documentation: 74; exclusivity clauses: 90; support for YouTube Official Artist Channels: 65; payment currency: 72; balance between simplicity and professional control: 82; management of multiple artists or projects: 70; support for singles, EPs and albums: 86; support for instrumental, live, remix and edit releases: 76; split royalties between collaborators: 60; compatibility with SIAE or other collecting societies: 60; additional marketing services: 58; editorial pitching: 55; interface and support language: 78; publishing administration: 45; collection of publishing royalties: 42; management of neighbouring rights: 40; features for independent labels: 60; management of cover versions: 60; support for music videos: 45; support for Dolby Atmos or immersive audio: 35.

Final note

This appendix should be read as a guide, not as a definitive judgement. The highest score indicates the service which, according to the model adopted, offers the best overall balance for an emerging independent artist. However, the actual choice may vary depending on the specific circumstances.

An artist who releases a lot of music each year might prioritise speed, simplicity and annual costs. An artist who releases music only rarely might prefer catalogue stability and payment per release. A more ambitious project might prioritise marketing, pitching, analytics and professional services. An artist focused on YouTube might place greater importance on Content ID, music videos and the Official Artist Channel.

The best choice, therefore, is not necessarily the top-ranked provider. It is the service that best suits your project, your publication schedule, your budget and your growth strategy.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *