SPOTIFY - Again

[JKL2000]

Did anyone else notice that Spotify recently stopped including the label name for albums? That was useful info with all the different editions of many albums. I’d imagine the labels aren’t happy about it.

[Mister Triscuits]

Spotify was in the news yesterday for some shenanigans whereby they are offering a service that bundles music and audiobooks which means they can pay a lower royalty to songwriters. (It can GET lower???) Oh, and they are raising subscription prices.

[JKL2000]

^ Damn, I’ll have to read-up on that, thanks.

[Czyszy]

Oh, and they are raising subscription prices.

If they're gonna raise subscription prices, they should fucking raise their encoding quality to lossless audio!

[JKL2000]

Did anyone else notice that Spotify recently stopped including the label name for albums? That was useful info with all the different editions of many albums. I’d imagine the labels aren’t happy about it.

Label names are either back now, or it’s just missing from the ones I looked at earlier.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

To add my irrelevant two cents:
I recently became a Spotify user primarily for one reason. Due to extreme financial difficulty l have been selling the majority of my CDs, and probably LPs eventually. Will probably be 90% of my collection when l am finished.
Speaking to that, 90% of the stuff l listen to on Spotify is music that l no longer own in physical form. I don't see this as any different than if l had ripped them to mp3s and listened to them that way (except through Spotify it is generating some revenue for someone, as opposed to listening to rips).
Admittedly l do listen to a small percentage of things that l never bought in physical form. It is more cost effective for me to listen to the one song l like by Tucky Buzzard, since l can't afford $15 to buy a CD for one song.
But again, 90% of the stuff l listen to on there is stuff l bought once or twice already but no longer physically own.

[EdWiser]

Same here but I use Apple Music as I can add live music or obscure music that isn’t in online catalogues. At one time I owned two rooms for records. Now I have everything in the cloud.

[Czyszy]

(except through Spotify it is generating some revenue for someone, as opposed to listening to rips)

The Spotify revenue is less than table scraps. With rips you get CD quality as opposed to Spotify's lossy compression and you can listen to them offline or edit/backup the files. And your rips aren't going anywhere when an artist decides to remove their songs from Spotify! If you want to support musicians, maybe try to find out if they have a Patreon and donating to them via that? A lot of artists have a Patreon these days.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

The Spotify revenue is less than table scraps. With rips you get CD quality as opposed to Spotify's lossy compression and you can listen to them offline or edit/backup the files. And your rips aren't going anywhere when an artist decides to remove their songs from Spotify! If you want to support musicians, maybe try to find out if they have a Patreon and donating to them via that? A lot of artists have a Patreon these days.

Did you catch the part about "extreme financial difficulty"? ☺
Additionally, as l mentioned l have already supported the majority of artists l listen to by buying their physical product once or even twice. Would it be any different if l were going to check them out of the library?
As for playing a song by Bubble Puppy or Crabby Appleton once a year...l doubt they have Patreon.
If l were listening to current artists struggling to make money off their releases, that would be different. The fact is l just don't. Almost everything l listen to came out before 1980.
I'm not worried about when and if something is taken down from Spotify. I have so many things to listen to on there that a few albums disappearing is not going to break my heart, any worse than the few that aren't available on there now.
And, l'm an old guy with bad hearing so the sound fidelity of Spotify VS. rips isn't an issue for me.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Me again...l actually can cite an example, come to think of it. The band Rain Parade released a new CD a few months back. Even though it is on Spotify l purchased a disc from them to support the band. In cases like that, l am not comfortable 'burning' an artist, by only listening to it on Spotify.

[Splicer]

The duty of consumers is to find the lowest price for the products they want. If they would also like to engage in charitable donations to artists, then that's also a choice.

[bondegezou]

The duty of consumers is to find the lowest price for the products they want. If they would also like to engage in charitable donations to artists, then that's also a choice.

Hello Ayn Rand, how are things?

You can adopt an uber-capitalist view of the "duty" of consumers. There are other perspectives. We live in a society in which money isn't the only way we relate to each other. We can recognise as consumers that the overall system isn't working for artists. Sure, you can listen to a vast array of music very cheaply, but know this, many of the artists you like are struggling and the music you like may not get made in the future under existing financial models.

[Splicer]

Hello Ayn Rand, how are things?

You can adopt an uber-capitalist view of the "duty" of consumers. There are other perspectives. We live in a society in which money isn't the only way we relate to each other. We can recognise as consumers that the overall system isn't working for artists. Sure, you can listen to a vast array of music very cheaply, but know this, many of the artists you like are struggling and the music you like may not get made in the future under existing financial models.

I hate Ayn Rand because she spoke a bunch of nonsense. I speak practically. Now, if there were a government program for the arts that gave money to artists so that they could continue creating, I would be all for that. Once the tax money is out of my hands, it ain't my money anymore I would think spending it on the arts would be a good investment. Ayn Rand wouldn't. I just don't think that spending thousands on dust-collecting items I listen to once is a good use for my money.

[battema]

Hello Ayn Rand, how are things?

You can adopt an uber-capitalist view of the "duty" of consumers. There are other perspectives. We live in a society in which money isn't the only way we relate to each other. We can recognise as consumers that the overall system isn't working for artists. Sure, you can listen to a vast array of music very cheaply, but know this, many of the artists you like are struggling and the music you like may not get made in the future under existing financial models.

While I appreciate your viewpoint far more strongly, sadly that's not the theme to the proverbial party these days.

[bondegezou]

I hate Ayn Rand because she spoke a bunch of nonsense. I speak practically. Now, if there were a government program for the arts that gave money to artists so that they could continue creating, I would be all for that. Once the tax money is out of my hands, it ain't my money anymore I would think spending it on the arts would be a good investment. Ayn Rand wouldn't. I just don't think that spending thousands on dust-collecting items I listen to once is a good use for my money.

Well, that's a different point to the claim that, "The duty of consumers is to find the lowest price for the products they want."

I don't think "spending thousands on dust-collecting items [you] listen to once is a good use for" anyone's money. Was anyone proposing that? I buy lots of CDs: I use CDs, so they're not just collecting dust. Buying a digital copy from an artist rather than (just) using streaming services generates no dust but can be an important income stream for the artist.

[Splicer]

Well, that's a different point to the claim that, "The duty of consumers is to find the lowest price for the products they want."

I don't think "spending thousands on dust-collecting items [you] listen to once is a good use for" anyone's money. Was anyone proposing that? I buy lots of CDs: I use CDs, so they're not just collecting dust. Buying a digital copy from an artist rather than (just) using streaming services generates no dust but can be an important income stream for the artist.

OK, if I desire to listen to something more than one time ever, I'll see if there's a digital copy that I'll buy and store in a folder in my computer or in the cloud. However, I can't tell you how many things I listen to on streaming that I hear at best once all the way through and never again. I mean, those are things I can put up with listening to all the way through once. A lot of the time it's listen, skip, skip, listen, give up.

[AdventAlan]

Greetings,

I think Spotify can be a very useful resource, both for listeners and artists, but not as a direct revenue stream. The positives as I see them (and very much how I leverage the platform myself):

1. An excellent "virtual listening booth" platform. If I'm interested in hearing a release that isn't readily available on my preferred platform of Bandcamp, I'll happily give it a listen on Spotify to see if I like it enough to purchase it elsewhere. As a matter of principle, though, I will not listen to a release more than once or twice without buying it so that I own a copy if possible (or when the purchase price is unreasonably high to buy a copy).

2. A good way to discover new music, especially leveraging their "Discover Weekly" playlist. (My son, Jesse, recommended this several years ago and I quickly discovered Gabriel Kahane, one of my favorite newer artists, this way.)

3. Included with the cost of digital distribution for one's own music, a good resource for new listeners to hear and gain interest in your work.

The above being said, many artists make virtually nothing (some now literally making nothing with new rules requiring 1,000 annual streams on a song to be paid at all) when their music is streamed. Additionally, I refuse to pay Spotify directly for anything, due to their royalty payment rates and policies (even though I hate the ads).

If you're interested in reading more about my personal thoughts on digital music publication, please see this blog on my personal website:

https://alan-benjamin-music.blogspot...dcamp-and.html

Thanks and best wishes,


Alan

[Czyszy]

Did you catch the part about "extreme financial difficulty"?

Bitch please. I live at the verge of poverty in a third world country! xd Of course supporting your fave artists via Patreon donations is optional. But don't you think that Spotify is so generous. xD And in the end, IMO not using Spotify won't lead the artists to starvation. xD Listening to my favorite 60's and 70's songs offline without a Spotify subscription on a regular basis for over 3 months will save me about ~10-12 USD a month. For ~12 USD is the average price of an album download from Bandcamp in lossless audio without obligatory volume normalization. And I would choose owning one album a month over renting millions of albums any day. Change my mind.

I'm not worried about when and if something is taken down from Spotify. I have so many things to listen to on there that a few albums disappearing is not going to break my heart, any worse than the few that aren't available on there now.
And, I'm an old guy with bad hearing so the sound fidelity of Spotify VS. rips isn't an issue for me.

Personally, I 100% disagree with everything you said here.
I get really anxious when something suddenly becomes unavailable. Aritsts don't ragequit streaming every day but it does happen from time to time. That's perhaps why I download way more stuff from the web than an average person. xd And as for sound fidelity, the deal breaker for me is the fact Spotify normalizes/adjusts the volume of each individual song, ruining the albums' masters and especially their flow in terms of dynamics. Particularly the less heavy releases. To each their own!

[bondegezou]

OK, if I desire to listen to something more than one time ever, I'll see if there's a digital copy that I'll buy and store in a folder in my computer or in the cloud. However, I can't tell you how many things I listen to on streaming that I hear at best once all the way through and never again. I mean, those are things I can put up with listening to all the way through once. A lot of the time it's listen, skip, skip, listen, give up.

Once upon a time, I'd scour the pages of fanzines, reading reviews of obscure prog albums, which I had no chance of hearing without buying, and then I'd order something and hope for the best. Sometimes it would be great and sometimes it wouldn't. But as I only had so many CDs, once I'd bought something, I'd listen to it multiple times, and sometimes stuff I didn't like on a first listen grew on me.

These days, I can listen to an album on Spotify or Bandcamp or YouTube. If not all of it, there'll still be some tracks to hear. I can buy with much greater confidence that I will like the album, although maybe I'm missing out on albums that take longer to grow on one?

In terms of how I spend my money, this feels like a better situation for me. But I'm also aware that (a) it changes my relationship with music. I end up listening to different music in different ways. And (b) it represents a change in how the industry operates, which throws up winners and (more?) losers.

I'm middle-aged now. I've got way more disposable income and rather less free time than the young bondegezou who scoured fanzines. I try to act as a consumer in a way that supports artists I like, who I know aren't making much money.

[bondegezou]

Greetings,

I think Spotify can be a very useful resource, both for listeners and artists, but not as a direct revenue stream. The positives as I see them (and very much how I leverage the platform myself):

1. An excellent "virtual listening booth" platform. If I'm interested in hearing a release that isn't readily available on my preferred platform of Bandcamp, I'll happily give it a listen on Spotify to see if I like it enough to purchase it elsewhere. As a matter of principle, though, I will not listen to a release more than once or twice without buying it so that I own a copy if possible (or when the purchase price is unreasonably high to buy a copy).

2. A good way to discover new music, especially leveraging their "Discover Weekly" playlist. (My son, Jesse, recommended this several years ago and I quickly discovered Gabriel Kahane, one of my favorite newer artists, this way.)

3. Included with the cost of digital distribution for one's own music, a good resource for new listeners to hear and gain interest in your work.

The above being said, many artists make virtually nothing (some now literally making nothing with new rules requiring 1,000 annual streams on a song to be paid at all) when their music is streamed. Additionally, I refuse to pay Spotify directly for anything, due to their royalty payment rates and policies (even though I hate the ads).

If you're interested in reading more about my personal thoughts on digital music publication, please see this blog on my personal website:

https://alan-benjamin-music.blogspot...dcamp-and.html

I agree with Anil Prasad's many criticisms of Spotify and its failure to pay artists a decent share of the profits. As it happens, I have a free Spotify account which is broken in that it doesn't play me adverts! So if I listen to something on Spotify, a (tiny) bit of money goes to the artist, but Spotify isn't getting money from me or advertisers. This assuages my guilt.

But, yes, I agree on point (2). Spotify's recommendation algorithm is much more complicated than competitors and it works pretty well. Thumbs up for the Spotify recommendation algorithm.

[rapidfirerob]

Did you catch the part about "extreme financial difficulty"? ☺
Additionally, as l mentioned l have already supported the majority of artists l listen to by buying their physical product once or even twice. Would it be any different if l were going to check them out of the library?
As for playing a song by Bubble Puppy or Crabby Appleton once a year...l doubt they have Patreon.
If l were listening to current artists struggling to make money off their releases, that would be different. The fact is l just don't. Almost everything l listen to came out before 1980.
I'm not worried about when and if something is taken down from Spotify. I have so many things to listen to on there that a few albums disappearing is not going to break my heart, any worse than the few that aren't available on there now.
And, l'm an old guy with bad hearing so the sound fidelity of Spotify VS. rips isn't an issue for me.

The first Crabby Appleton needs to be listened to in its entirety.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

The first Crabby Appleton needs to be listened to in its entirety.

Yes, Crabby was a bad example, actually! I do have the first album on CD and vinyl. A great album.

[Poisoned Youth]

Spotify is a great resource for voracious music lovers. I pay $15/mo. for multiple users, have curated multiple playlists, and use it daily. It sits along the several terabytes of music I have ripped from my collection over the years and the occasional digital purchase I make to BC, Amazon or other carrier for music that matters more to me. Portability and access are important to me at this stage. And the practicality that I only have two ears and so much time factors in as well.

I think Slicer’s use of the word “duty” was a poor choice, but consumers make choices all the time based on what they value and how they value it. And this measure of value changes from person to person.

While I’m no fan of Spotify’s business model and outcomes, I also generally don’t get caught up in the ethics paradox. For every product one boycotts for ethical reasons, there are others that same person uses while ignoring or rationalizing its own ethical ramifications.

[Mascodagama]

I hate Ayn Rand because she spoke a bunch of nonsense.

I started reading The Fountainhead once. Based on the hundred or so pages I managed to get through it amazed me that anyone could take her remotely seriously either on the level of ideas or as a novelist (which I guess she technically was, despite lacking almost all of the skills usually considered relevant). I only got that far due to the unintentional humour to be found in the whole enterprise, but even that got old pretty fast.

To the extent that I want to pay for the ability to stream music online, I'm gonna use Bandcamp and see the artists fairly remunerated. Pretty much all of the current artists I am interested are to be found on there. Usually I'm buying the CD anyway, and the streaming is a bonus. All that said, I don't blame anyone who subscribes to Spotify if they also support artists in other ways like buying physical media, merch or concert tickets. Or if they don't have the financial means to do so, and Spotify is the best option to have access to a wide range of music.

[Steve F.]

Hello Ayn Rand, how are things?

Ba-Zing!