Ok, so I was loyal to iTunes, being a Mac user and all... but Spotify apparently lets me listen all kinds of music for free.
So where's the catch? :huh:
Need premium account to listen on smartphone. Other than that, haven't seen any catch.
Well and if premium on PC don't get the ads every 8-10 songs if i recall correctly.
Ok, didn't notice that. But that's about 5 Euro per month, so still pretty cheap.
No catch that I know of. It's the civilized way to listen to music. Obviously you pay the tiny sum to avoid ads.
I like it a lot, even though I've come across quite a few albums missing (e.g. a lot of Napalm Records releases or most Welle:Erdball albums).
without premium lots of stuff is off limits and you can only listen to a song 5 times too.
it used to be great, despite a sometimes iffy libraray ive not used it for years.
Talk about a coincidence! I helping my dad install stuff on his computer and I found this on there last night. My brother (who also uses that PC), installed it. Had no clue what it did. Almost deleted it, (My dad had a bunch of junk on there for some reason) but my brother intervened and said he used it.
Grooveshark. No premium account anymore for mobile app, not ad-supported. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on March 17, 2013, 03:03:12 AM
Ok, so I was loyal to iTunes, being a Mac user and all... but Spotify apparently lets me listen all kinds of music for free.
So where's the catch? :huh:
The musicians and songwriters get Very little money compared with what they recieved if you bought a CD or to a lesser extent the digital download.
Does it offer anything that a combination of youtube(songs on demand) and Pandora(shuffle + discover new stuff) don't?
While I like Pandora, my understanding is that compared to other music-streaming/radio sites, their overall content library is rather limited.
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
The musicians and songwriters get Very little money compared with what they recieved if you bought a CD or to a lesser extent the digital download.
Who cares about them? If they wanted to make money, they should have gotten a real job.
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
The musicians and songwriters get Very little money compared with what they recieved if you bought a CD or to a lesser extent the digital download.
Mongers, please look stuff up before you start talking. An artist on iTunes will probably get less than 6% paid out to them. Streaming is expensive for the provider; they end up saddled with the satellite radio rate, or 10.5-12% of the revenue for the playing time (a couple years back, I was actually part of one group that lobbied unsuccessfully to keep the rate hike from going through). CD rates are actually by far the lowest. The regulatory rate is 9.1 cents per song or 1.75 cents per minute, whichever is greater. Most of your Billboard Top 100 artists don't put out songs longer than 5:12 (the break-even point), so for that $20 CD you bought at the store with 10 short-ish tracks, the artist got 91 cents. Less than 5 percent.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 17, 2013, 11:14:26 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
The musicians and songwriters get Very little money compared with what they recieved if you bought a CD or to a lesser extent the digital download.
Mongers, please look stuff up before you start talking. An artist on iTunes will probably get less than 6% paid out to them. Streaming is expensive for the provider; they end up saddled with the satellite radio rate, or 10.5-12% of the revenue for the playing time (a couple years back, I was actually part of one group that lobbied unsuccessfully to keep the rate hike from going through). CD rates are actually by far the lowest. The regulatory rate is 9.1 cents per song or 1.75 cents per minute, whichever is greater. Most of your Billboard Top 100 artists don't put out songs longer than 5:12 (the break-even point), so for that $20 CD you bought at the store with 10 short-ish tracks, the artist got 91 cents. Less than 5 percent.
This is a good way of getting people to disregard the rest of what you then say; you should try that approach more often. ;)
To be fair, he actually provided some numbers.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 17, 2013, 05:07:56 PM
To be fair, he actually provided some numbers.
But based on a number of assumptions, for counter examples I can think of several professional musicians I've had dealings with who firstly don't allow their music on streaming services, also some will, some won't use digital downloads websites.
And quite a few have fought* to regain the valuable rights to their original releases, so they now run their own record labels, so selling direct now gives them considerable more revenue per cd sale than previously, which is another good reason to buy in this way.
* In quite a few instances, because of the release dates, these back catalogues are now reverting back to the artists/holders.
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2013, 04:51:39 AM
without premium lots of stuff is off limits and you can only listen to a song 5 times too.
it used to be great, despite a sometimes iffy libraray ive not used it for years.
I don't think this is true. I didn't have a premium account for awhile and didn't encounter any play limits. Has anyone else seen that? I believe that premium just takes ads away and lets you use it on a mobile device.
There is also songs you might want to listen to that aren't on Spotify. I don't think I've found much of the Eagles, Pink Floyd, and I can't find Taylor Swift's Red album.
Dude it's tyr
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2013, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 17, 2013, 05:07:56 PM
To be fair, he actually provided some numbers.
But based on a number of assumptions, for counter examples I can think of several professional musicians I've had dealings with who firstly don't allow their music on streaming services, also some will, some won't use digital downloads websites.
And quite a few have fought* to regain the valuable rights to their original releases, so they now run their own record labels, so selling direct now gives them considerable more revenue per cd sale than previously, which is another good reason to buy in this way.
* In quite a few instances, because of the release dates, these back catalogues are now reverting back to the artists/holders.
The problem is obviously their contract with a distributor. Handle your own business, deal with spotify directly.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 17, 2013, 07:32:18 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2013, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 17, 2013, 05:07:56 PM
To be fair, he actually provided some numbers.
But based on a number of assumptions, for counter examples I can think of several professional musicians I've had dealings with who firstly don't allow their music on streaming services, also some will, some won't use digital downloads websites.
And quite a few have fought* to regain the valuable rights to their original releases, so they now run their own record labels, so selling direct now gives them considerable more revenue per cd sale than previously, which is another good reason to buy in this way.
* In quite a few instances, because of the release dates, these back catalogues are now reverting back to the artists/holders.
The problem is obviously their contract with a distributor. Handle your own business, deal with spotify directly.
No I was refutting the ideas that you can take a specific set of circumstances and say hey look this guy only gets 50c per cd sales, the reality is a lot more complex than the freetard community wants to admit.
Bottom line, if you're only willing to pay people peanuts, indirectly at that, then you'll end up only listening to organ grinders, the monkey having left to take part in a tv talent contest.
Quote from: mongers on March 17, 2013, 07:37:16 PM
Bottom line, if you're only willing to pay people peanuts, indirectly at that, then you'll end up only listening to organ grinders, the monkey having left to take part in a tv talent contest.
Nah, people will still make music because they enjoy doing it, and the successful/popular ones will still get a lot of money for it.
Yes, Tyr, I'm making up the stuff I found in 38 CFR. Those numbers are dictated by US copyright law, dude. Your numbers might vary in the UK, but here, you'll get a lot of asshole musicians who are either too disgruntled, too inept, or too embarrassed to tell you the real numbers.
*pssst* I think you meant to call out Mongers, not Tyr. ;)
I don't have the numbers, but the story in the media over here has been for a while now that for the average artist or those under contract with small labels or independent the main source of income is playing gigs.
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2013, 07:06:03 PM
Quote from: Tyr on March 17, 2013, 04:51:39 AM
without premium lots of stuff is off limits and you can only listen to a song 5 times too.
it used to be great, despite a sometimes iffy libraray ive not used it for years.
I don't think this is true. I didn't have a premium account for awhile and didn't encounter any play limits. Has anyone else seen that? I believe that premium just takes ads away and lets you use it on a mobile device.
It used to be true and might still be for certain countries. The US never had the 5 times limit but Sweden did, I think they changed it so that now you can only listen to 10h monthly with free.
The catch is that you rarely listen to something new. With radio you're introduced to a whole range of styles, with streaming music you're stuck in your own little music bubble. I usually don't have time to browse for something new so I need to be in a particularly curious state of mind to go "similar artist hopping". :)
One seemingly minor thing that I nevertheless greatly love about Spotify is that if you listen to an album there's rarely a gap between tracks - which is invaluable for classical pieces that often become choppy otherwise.
It's what made me cancel my subscription at Classical Archives, even though their library is absolutely amazing.
Any reason to switch from Rhapsody?
Seems to me that Spotify does better in areas I don't care about like social sharing of playlists, while doing less well on things like artist information that are more useful to me.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Any reason to switch from Rhapsody?
Seems to me that Spotify does better in areas I don't care about like social sharing of playlists, while doing less well on things like artist information that are more useful to me.
I guess the breath of their catalogue would be key for me.
Someone should do a comparison website for the streaming services, showing which acts and labels are on which; it could then generate an income on click-thru.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2013, 05:26:09 PM
Any reason to switch from Rhapsody?
Seems to me that Spotify does better in areas I don't care about like social sharing of playlists, while doing less well on things like artist information that are more useful to me.
Probably not for you, but can't say as Rhapsody only appears to be available in the U.S.
Quote from: mongers on March 18, 2013, 07:08:09 PM
I guess the breath of their catalogue would be key for me.
Someone should do a comparison website for the streaming services, showing which acts and labels are on which; it could then generate an income on click-thru.
They are all pretty much the same in terms of breadth. Artists and lables either allow streaming or they don't.
There's actually no reason to pay more per song to "support the artist." The job of a consumer is the get the best deal, the end result for everyone else in the production chain is irrelevant.
Further, very few artists in history have made a living selling recorded music. I'd say the golden age of albums/records ended some time in the early 2000s and basically from the first big album hits til the end of the era I'd wager fewer than 150 people in the industry per year were actually making enough off of album sales alone to replace all other forms of income.
Since time immemorial artists have made money by performing, the recorded music stuff was an anomaly during a period when technology made it possible. Artists have certainly made money off of new media when they've gotten creative, but the overall picture for them is grim. Every person I know in the music world regularly posts long news articles onto facebook talking about how the "promise of iTunes" and other paid online distribution methods has meant far less money for artists than the old system. That's the trend, not the few outliers who have been able to convince people to give them money (the equivalent of fancy begging on the street with an instrument case open.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2013, 07:56:38 AM
Further, very few artists in history have made a living selling recorded music. I'd say the golden age of albums/records ended some time in the early 2000s and basically from the first big album hits til the end of the era I'd wager fewer than 150 people in the industry per year were actually making enough off of album sales alone to replace all other forms of income.
On the flip side, the proliferation of digital media and teh intrawebs have brought countless artists to modern audiences--from waiting tables to awards ceremonies within a matter of months--that never would've been heard from in the old days, languishing in bars, arts festivals and county fairs for years.
Quote from: Jaron on March 17, 2013, 07:07:09 PM
There is also songs you might want to listen to that aren't on Spotify. I don't think I've found much of the Eagles, Pink Floyd, and I can't find Taylor Swift's Red album.
It has the entire Dead Can Dance and Therion discography so I'm happy. :P
Also, Taylor Swift? Wtf?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2013, 08:10:27 AM
On the flip side, the proliferation of digital media and teh intrawebs have brought countless artists to modern audiences
Who?
The Obama Girl and PsyOps are the only ones I can think of.
Justin Bieber and Soulja Boy are two though clearly I don't endorse their music.
Quick search also nets Lily Allen, Sean Kingston and The Arctic Monkeys.
Quote from: Gups on March 19, 2013, 07:56:28 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 18, 2013, 07:08:09 PM
I guess the breath of their catalogue would be key for me.
Someone should do a comparison website for the streaming services, showing which acts and labels are on which; it could then generate an income on click-thru.
They are all pretty much the same in terms of breadth. Artists and lables either allow streaming or they don't.
:thumbsup:
Good to know, but too many bands missing to temp be to sign up.
Plus the being tied to a cloub/internet service for music has downsides for me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2013, 08:10:27 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2013, 07:56:38 AM
Further, very few artists in history have made a living selling recorded music. I'd say the golden age of albums/records ended some time in the early 2000s and basically from the first big album hits til the end of the era I'd wager fewer than 150 people in the industry per year were actually making enough off of album sales alone to replace all other forms of income.
On the flip side, the proliferation of digital media and teh intrawebs have brought countless artists to modern audiences--from waiting tables to awards ceremonies within a matter of months--that never would've been heard from in the old days, languishing in bars, arts festivals and county fairs for years.
You're still old enough to remember the days when labels had real talent scouts or when an influential DJ could help make a band. Whatever the drawbacks of that system, it was a little more reliable in identifying people with actual talent for musical performance as opposed to maximizing social media connections.
:huh: The person who determines whether or not a person likes a band is, well, the person listening.
One man's "actual talent for musical performance" is "stuffy overthought bullshit" to another.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 11:13:25 AM
:huh: The person who determines whether or not a person likes a band is, well, the person listening.
One man's "actual talent for musical performance" is "stuffy overthought bullshit" to another.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that made Justin Bieber rich
Singing and playing muscial instruments is a skill and doing it well like any other skill requires talent and thousands of hours of practice.
To think otherwise is to demean the musicians who perform for their living.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 11:44:18 AM
That's exactly the kind of thinking that made Justin Bieber rich
Which means that the kind of thing you're talking about has not been a part of pop music taste-making process since the days of the crooners.
I actually wasn't talking about pop music, but I can see that you're using this as an excuse to be elite, not make an actual argument. So have at it :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 11:44:18 AM
That's exactly the kind of thinking that made Justin Bieber rich
Singing and playing muscial instruments is a skill and doing it well like any other skill requires talent and thousands of hours of practice.
To think otherwise is to demean the musicians who perform for their living.
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
Record companies and agents are, on the whole, interested in money a little else. That was true before the internet age as much as it is now.
Quote from: Gups on March 20, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
You're getting in the way of his original point, which is that he has better taste than everyone else. Shame on you.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 11:48:39 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 11:44:18 AM
That's exactly the kind of thinking that made Justin Bieber rich
Which means that the kind of thing you're talking about has not been a part of pop music taste-making process since the days of the crooners.
I actually wasn't talking about pop music, but I can see that you're using this as an excuse to be elite, not make an actual argument. So have at it :)
:D
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 12:18:20 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 20, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
You're getting in the way of his original point, which is that he has better taste than everyone else. Shame on you.
I thought his point was that he has better taste than teenage girls. Probably true.
Quote from: Gups on March 20, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
Record companies and agents are, on the whole, interested in money a little else. That was true before the internet age as much as it is now.
Sure, the difference being that before what mattered was how you sounded on the radio. Now what matters is how many likes you can draw.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 12:18:20 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 20, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
You're getting in the way of his original point, which is that he has better taste than everyone else. Shame on you.
I apologize.
Apparently someone has seized my internet identity and been sending you messages without my knowledge.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 01:42:54 PM
Sure, the difference being that before what mattered was how you sounded on the radio. Now what matters is how many likes you can draw.
You don't get likes if people don't like your sound (or perhaps presentation as there is the visual component for some artists).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 01:45:04 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 12:18:20 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 20, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
You're getting in the way of his original point, which is that he has better taste than everyone else. Shame on you.
I apologize.
Apparently someone has seized my internet identity and been sending you messages without my knowledge.
I forgive you :)
Also I think fhdz is right that you're being a bit snobby. We've a long history of popular music coming out of people with little talent.
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2013, 01:47:48 PM
Also I think fhdz is right that you're being a bit snobby.
One person's snobby is another's person giving enough of a crap to care.
QuoteWe've a long history of popular music coming out of people with little talent.
No reason to encourage it further.
To a large extent, quality will endure, so give it 50 years and we'll be able to see what was good in today's pop music.
For all of the good stuff that came out of the 60s and which is lionized today, there was a fair bit of dreadful stuff that the sands of time have washed over, but dig a bit and you can still find reference and examples of it; for instance teen bands every bit as dreaful as some of today's pap products.
Quote from: mongers on March 20, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
To a large extent, quality will endure, so give it 50 years and we'll be able to see what was good in today's pop music.
For all of the good stuff that came out of the 60s and which is lionized today, there was a fair bit of dreadful stuff that the sands of time have washed over, but dig a bit and you can still find reference and examples of it; for instance teen bands every bit as dreaful as some of today's pap products.
Awful stuff like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Dion, Del Shannon, Herman's Hermits...
I guess there wasn't much market in the early-mid 60s for rock music that wasn't teen-focused. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 20, 2013, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 20, 2013, 01:59:25 PM
To a large extent, quality will endure, so give it 50 years and we'll be able to see what was good in today's pop music.
For all of the good stuff that came out of the 60s and which is lionized today, there was a fair bit of dreadful stuff that the sands of time have washed over, but dig a bit and you can still find reference and examples of it; for instance teen bands every bit as dreaful as some of today's pap products.
Awful stuff like the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Dion, Del Shannon, Herman's Hermits...
I guess there wasn't much market in the early-mid 60s for rock music that wasn't teen-focused. :hmm:
I think this says more about your 'thought processes' than it does about my comment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 01:42:54 PM
Sure, the difference being that before what mattered was how you sounded on the radio. Now what matters is how many likes you can draw.
The practical difference eludes me. You were judged by how many people called the station requesting your songs and how many albums you sold. That seems like just more committed versions of 'likes'.
My thought processes are more interesting than your comment. :showoff:
But it is relevant to your comment in that both the good and bad of the day were teen bands. The oldsters listened to Frank Sinatra and Glen Miller. Nowadays, "teen band" is synonymous with lukewarm studio-created blandness sold more by how they look than how they sound.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 01:49:31 PM
One person's snobby is another's person giving enough of a crap to care.
:lol: :hug:
Quote from: garbon on March 20, 2013, 01:47:48 PM
Also I think fhdz is right that you're being a bit snobby. We've a long history of popular music coming out of people with little talent.
More importantly, what I was really getting at is that there is also a history of people making some truly memorable, amazing music with precious little formal musical talent.
The Beatles are an interesting example: Paul McCartney learned to play by ear rather than by reading music, and if anyone thinks Ringo Starr was a "good" drummer they are sorely mistaken.
The broader issue is this: yes the internet and social applications provides more expanded opportunities for talented people to reach an audience that they might not otherwise have access to. And that is a good thing. Unfortunately that comes at a cost: an avalanche of triviality, mendacity, and sheer dreck that one must wade through to uncover the few gems. People sometimes invoke the wisdom of crowds but I have my doubts. If really well organized, about the most impressive achievement of a crowd is "The Wave;" when less organized crowds are good at trampling to each other to death. Wisdom rarely comes into it either way.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 02:40:46 PM
More importantly, what I was really getting at is that there is also a history of people making some truly memorable, amazing music with precious little formal musical talent.
The Beatles are an interesting example: Paul McCartney learned to play by ear rather than by reading music, and if anyone thinks Ringo Starr was a "good" drummer they are sorely mistaken.
Song writing is an aspect of musical talent, which the Beatles possessed in abundance.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 02:40:46 PM
The Beatles are an interesting example: Paul McCartney learned to play by ear rather than by reading music, and if anyone thinks Ringo Starr was a "good" drummer they are sorely mistaken.
The Beatles had extraordinary natural talent, and practiced and played together for many thousands of hours before breaking through.
You seem to be moving the goalposts a bit.
Agreed that the recording industry system was a bizzare blip whose time is nearly up.
But that leaves the question of what will replace it. Its hard to imagine going entirely back to pre recording industry music hall times.
One way things might go in the west, and which I dread, is in the direction of AKB48. AKB are the most popular pop group in Japan at the moment, they're just massive, and shit. They were founded with the idea that they would be pop stars the fans could meet, aiming for the nerd demographic and giving daily performances in their own theatre.
Somehow this really worked and their popularity spread beyond their target audience and into being popular with normal people, they're really big with young girls.
One way they really rake in big money and still manage to sell lots of records is that they hold regular elections where fans vote for their favourite members and choose who will appear on and take the lead on their next single. To get a vote you have to buy a single, hence you get the crazy mega fans buying hundreds of them all so they can vote for their favourite member a bunch of times.
Quote
I don't think this is true. I didn't have a premium account for awhile and didn't encounter any play limits. Has anyone else seen that? I believe that premium just takes ads away and lets you use it on a mobile device.
Haven't used spotify for a while but it definitely was true 2 or 3 years back.
First there was the limit of a certain number of hours a week then on top of that they added the 5 listen thing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 20, 2013, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: Gups on March 20, 2013, 12:17:01 PM
You do know that Justin Bieber was made rich by a professional talent scount and then signed to a major label before he became rich?
Record companies and agents are, on the whole, interested in money a little else. That was true before the internet age as much as it is now.
Sure, the difference being that before what mattered was how you sounded on the radio. Now what matters is how many likes you can draw.
Watch this space.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2254181/YouTube-wipes-billions-video-views-finding-faked-music-industry.html
I read an article on the bbc site a few days ago (which I cant find myself) which mentioned there'd been a big investigation into these goings on and a big report was due before long.
Quote from: fahdiz on March 20, 2013, 03:31:22 PM
You seem to be moving the goalposts a bit.
I'm not sure where the hostility to JR is coming from, but his point is, I think, valid. Your argument that the Beatles had "precious little formal musical talent" doesn't make much sense. Talent isn't "formal" or informal, it is present to a given degree (or perhaps absent entirely).
JR's note that the Beatles had both talent and practice is true, and is a contrast to, not an example of, artists who produce amazing work with little practice or training. The latter exist (if rarely), but the Beatles aren't the example you claim.
Well this was a retarded discussion.
I think you mean "special needs discussion".
Quote from: The Brain on March 22, 2013, 01:36:08 PM
Well this was a retarded discussion.
It is now that you've chimed in!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 19, 2013, 08:10:27 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on March 19, 2013, 07:56:38 AM
Further, very few artists in history have made a living selling recorded music. I'd say the golden age of albums/records ended some time in the early 2000s and basically from the first big album hits til the end of the era I'd wager fewer than 150 people in the industry per year were actually making enough off of album sales alone to replace all other forms of income.
On the flip side, the proliferation of digital media and teh intrawebs have brought countless artists to modern audiences--from waiting tables to awards ceremonies within a matter of months--that never would've been heard from in the old days, languishing in bars, arts festivals and county fairs for years.
The biggest value the studios created for most artists was exposure, most artists never made enough off of royalties anyway and had to tour. But exposure is the difference between touring in shit kicker clubs from Road House versus playing in sold out civic arenas. I definitely see new media replacing that traditional role over time.
Road House.