It's useless if it doesn't have EVERY Cast album.
Seriously, though, for the long term, what I'd really love is a Streaming service that could replace my CD collection, but if I got rid of my CD collection and suddenly needed to listen to the first Braindance album and Spotify didn't have it, well, as Steve said, fuck those losers!
Two articles you should read to get some idea of the answer to your question:
This and this.
I am not going to get onto an in-depth discussion again, as I've done it more than once here at PE, and have said all I need to say, but for those of you who are on Faceboo' there is a thread on my page that has people including musicians, label owners and more weighing in. Check it out. And feel free to contribute. The more awareness is raised, the better, IMO.
Nobody bitching about Spotify (well, reasonable folks, anyway) have problems with the technology. It's the business that is faulty and has serious implications for the future of recorded music, if artists, labels and web stores like the recently defunct ReR USA are to be believed.
Some don't believe them; others don't care. But the truth is, em, out there, and the consequences are already beginning to be felt.
But it is NOT the technology that's bad...nor the implementation, which is very good.
Just want to make that clear as that's the first argument that is raised against those who criticize streaming services. While I currently have no need for streaming services, it see absolutely nothing wrong with them..,welcome them, in fact, in principle.
But artists need to be paid more fairly. And the billing model has to change, as Esoteric's Vicky Powell has posted elsewhere, from the current "all you can eat" buffet model to something more focused, which would he able to allow for more equitable payment of the people who make the music being streamed.
That's it for me here. Carry on, folks
Is the way artists are compensated by Spotify at all similar to the way people are compensated by Netflix? Just wondering...
This video about the download subject is funny and sad at the same time. I got the link from Scott Henderson's website.
http://www.scotthenderson.net/Tribal_Tech_X.mp4
No new info here, but some perspectives on both sides from people inside the music industry, thought I'd share:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-2...rvices/5920428
So would I. But of course we should be discussing the principle of buying, not whether you would buy music from a particular artist such as Noel Gallagher or Megan Washington.
And by the way... isn't £10.00 a lot for two coffees? Typical price for a coffee in a sit-down coffee shop in Perth is about $4 (just over £2), and Perth is the most expensive capital city in Australia. I never imagined Glasgow as being so expensive.
I agree, Noel inflated the cost of two coffees and deflated the cost of a CD, which I found in London can average £18-£20.
Duncan's going to make a Horns Emoticon!!!
It's great. Have my music there too and cash in a few bucks. Miss Cardiacs and Steven Wilson. The rest is there.
> we should be discussing the principle of buying, not whether you would buy music from a particular artist
I can't imagine there's any member of this group who doesn't want to use some of their disposable income to support artists, but Spotify isn't going away ( I have a Premium membership). Artists had already stopped making money on their albums before Spotify came along.
>I never imagined Glasgow as being so expensive
There are places in Glasgow you could spend £10 on two coffee's (perhaps have enough change for a muffin). I can't do without Tetley teabags personally.
If everyone was like you nobody would be discussing this as a problem. The problem is "the haters," as you call 'em,are referring to the majority of people who use Spotify to replace buying music, not as an augmentation or means to try music out and then purchase what they like.
You are the anomaly, not the norm, I'm sorry to say....
It was declining, yes, but that doesn't mean we should allow it to continue. Suggesting that because the problem already existed and, therefore, something that makes it even worse should be accepted is, well, some of the most back-asswaeds logic I've ever heard.
The point, whether it's two coffees or three, and whether it's Noel Gallagher's CD or someone else's, we're back to the same basic argument: do you care about the musicians enough to want tomhelp support them do what they do? And when placed in the context of buying a few cups of coffee that come and go, or buying an album that you'll have for decades, makes me wonder how anyone can justify the position.
Yes, it's great for consumers but is ultimately bad for the labels and artists - especially in niche markets like progressive, jazz, etc - and that means it will eventually come back to bite ya. OTOH, if you're a casual listener who doesn't care about sound quality, about fair compensation, and about all the other issues that continue to get raised about the inevitable consequences of streaming services like Spotify and, worse, YouTube, then why would or should you care?
And that's the real heart of the problem. I've run into so many people in casual conversations in airports, shuttles and hotels, that it makes me wonder if a good resolution is actually possible. But as long as there's hope, I figure i will continue stating my on objections.
Our man Anil Prasad is tryng to get someone from the upper levels of Spotify to speak with him so he can ask the hard questions and see what the answers are.
Last edited by jkelman; 11-27-2014 at 10:34 PM.
For just trying out music, why not just use YouTube, which is free (for now)? To me it only makes sense to use Spotify to replace buying (or owning) music, but as I've said they have so little of what I want.
I'm not yet worried about whether or not artists are getting paid by services like Spotify because those services offer me nothing.
Well, most folks in the biz actually see YouTube as a greater problem. Like it or not, Spotify is legal. YouTube places the responsibility of policing its site on the shoulders of the artist and/or labels.
There's great stuff to be found, but a lot of bad practices too, especially when they lifted the 10-minute limit on clips. People post entire recordings as well as entire commercially available live videos. And the truth is, unless folks let artists or labels know, it's hugely time-consuming to have to police it.
Earlier, there was a case to be made for youtube as free advertizing, but unless they reinstate the 10-minute limit, and with other plans for for-fee services, it may turn out to be worse than Spotify.
And while it make sense to you as a consumer to use Spotify to replace buying/owning music, the question is: at what cost? And when you see people like Taylor Swift taking a stand - and, as a result, Sony reconsidering - then it does have to make you wonder why Spotify is so vilified. There's a good reason....but the question is: does the average consumer give a hoot? And the answer, sadly, seems to be no. Still, when someone as big as Swift takes a very visible stand, perhaps it will raise awareness amongst those who might otherwise not even think about it.
Agree 1,000%.
Nothing = nothing. So when it becomes the norm, count me out. I have enough physical stuff to listen to for another lifetime, so I don't think I'll miss big thing. However, I don't think that music of the genres that interest me will stop being produced on any physical medium soon. I'm in the 500 physical products per release league, as far as my purchase history of the last 15 years proves...
The rumor is that Apple wants to integrate Beats music into iTunes as early as next Spring and also undercut Spotify's $9.99 a month pricing by selling subscriptions at $5.99. I think that if this happens and the new Beats includes The Beatles, Taylor Swift and other big names whose music isn't on Spotify that Spotify could be in deep trouble especially if Apple follows through with offering the service on non IOS platforms. I recently decided that I couldn't justify the $9.99 a month when I have a library of 2,500 plus discs staring at me so I dumped Spotify to spend more time with the music I all ready have.
"It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters
What would be perfect IMHO would be a streaming service that could also pull music and fill in gaps from your locally stored music library and do so seamlessly and invisibly. Then you could build or automatically generate "genius" playlists or create "stations" that combined streamed and library music. Basically I want one and ONLY one music app that is a combination of Spotify/Beats, iTunes and Groove. I'd go back to being a subscriber if something like that were ever offered.
Last edited by Frumious B; 11-28-2014 at 06:35 AM.
"It was a cruel song, but fair."-Roger Waters
Bookmarks