Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 170

Thread: SPOTIFY - Again

  1. #51
    chalkpie
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    Fuck those losers.
    Sounds enticing and some of those folks are DAMN sexy, but unfortunately that wouldn't work for us married folks....

  2. #52
    chalkpie
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by chalkpie View Post
    No Cardiacs, ReR, Cuneiform, etc.
    Ya know, come to think of it, Spotify is pretty much worthless without that stuff!

  3. #53
    Member Just Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Marin County, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by chalkpie View Post
    Ya know, come to think of it, Spotify is pretty much worthless without that stuff!
    Just cancelled my lifetime subscription due to these omissions.

    Oh wait, I have most of those releases on CD stashed safely away in the cloud.
    Duncan's going to make a Horns Emoticon!!!

  4. #54
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    9,411
    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!

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by gallen1964 View Post
    Wonder if anyone can give me an update on how Spotify is viewed by artistes. I subscribe but suspect artists get virtually nothing. I DO really like it but still buy CD's. I'm curious as to how albums get on so early - almost pre release - does the artist give any consent? But also albums disappear which would suggest no consent given? eg some Virgil Donati - the Live in Oz album was on for quite a while but isn't anymore. Would be grateful for any inside track.
    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.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Brainforest View Post
    As an artist, I have the obvious concerns about Spotify. That being said, I have a hard time mustering up any anger about it because as a music fan, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE it! Their radio function is great. I have discovered more great new music than I can possibly listen to in a 24-hour day. Music from all genres I would've never heard otherwise.
    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

  7. #57
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    9,411
    Is the way artists are compensated by Spotify at all similar to the way people are compensated by Netflix? Just wondering...

  8. #58
    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

  9. #59
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    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

  10. #60
    Member Yeswave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    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
    Thanks for that. I'd rather buy 2 coffees' than spend 10.00 on a Noel Gallagher CD - and I don't even like coffee.

  11. #61
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeswave View Post
    Thanks for that. I'd rather buy 2 coffees' than spend 10.00 on a Noel Gallagher CD - and I don't even like coffee.
    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.

  12. #62
    Member Just Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Marin County, California
    Posts
    0
    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!!!

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by chalkpie View Post
    Huge fan. My albums are on there too and I haven't seen a penny. It's changed my life musically. I have bought more music than ever because of it so the haters can have themselves a squat on the cosmic utensil. With love of course. Best $10 I spend every month no joke.
    What aggregator do you use?

  14. #64
    It's great. Have my music there too and cash in a few bucks. Miss Cardiacs and Steven Wilson. The rest is there.

  15. #65
    Member Yeswave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    31
    > 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.

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by chalkpie View Post
    Huge fan. My albums are on there too and I haven't seen a penny. It's changed my life musically. I have bought more music than ever because of it so the haters can have themselves a squat on the cosmic utensil. With love of course. Best $10 I spend every month no joke.
    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....

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeswave View Post
    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.
    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.

  18. #68
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    9,411
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    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....
    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.

  19. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by JKL2000 View Post
    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.

  20. #70

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER View Post
    I buy albums that are recommended by PE folks whose opinions I trust. I had a spotify account but I don't use it. I like and take pride in my LP and CD collection and cant imagine ever having my collection be invisible (as in just downloaded into a device that can break or get lost or stolen) I like holding LPs and looking at the artwork, liner notes and lyrics. I know that physical albums are quickly becoming extinct, but as long as they are available I will continue to buy new ones. When the music I want becomes only available as downloaded nothingness, I'll stop buying 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...
    Macht das ohr auf!

    COSMIC EYE RECORDS

  22. #72
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    361
    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

  23. #73
    Mod or rocker? Mocker. Frumious B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Smyrna, GA
    Posts
    361
    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

  24. #74
    chalkpie
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Just Eric View Post
    Just cancelled my lifetime subscription due to these omissions.

    Oh wait, I have most of those releases on CD stashed safely away in the cloud.
    What cloud do you speak of? iCloud? What is the best cloud service to use for non-apple dudes like me?

  25. #75
    chalkpie
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake View Post
    What aggregator do you use?
    CD baby and the usual prog vendors sell some like Lasers, Wayside, etc
    Last edited by chalkpie; 11-28-2014 at 06:46 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •