Spotify - anyone heard of it?

ok then your issue is how on earth "as they become more powerful" and "better competition" co-exist

well I could see spotify growing along with another competitor, and that competitor switching to a 'we are the ethical music streaming service' strategy.

perhaps I am warped by california in seeing that as a winner, though

again please give an example of this utopian situation where pepsi appears next to coke and then says "we're the ethical one" and the other responds by trying to beat it at its own game at the expense of a minority shareholder

honestly vinyl making a mega-comeback seems more likely

a big reason i don't actually think glenn's being a pr shill (though he could try harder to avoid looking like one) is that clearly you don't have to get a check from spotify to find spotify worth crafting hilariously optimistic fantasies over. for the music nerd the current situation is fucking sweeeeeeet and now that we've tasted paradise why would we want to go without it.

xp that would be great. I could pay $10/month for spotify and then go to my local record store and actually pay $15 or less for any new record. yes, please.

and my new mac demarco record wouldn't be horribly decentered bc people would remember how to cut records correctly

said it before but my dream of avalon is that mp3s and cds go the way of the dodo, spotify (or some relatively unsoiled simulacrum) is given 2-3 songs from every artist who finds the promotion worthwhile, with the rest of the songs from an "album" behind a paywall and/or available on vinyl. for those only interested in the hits, they'd still have access to thousands and thousands of songs in a jukebox of the gods. and everyone who gets heavily invested in an artist would actually have cause beyond a patrician's guilt to give them more money for more music.

wouldn't swear it's gonna happen, though

2-3 songs per album, i mean. if we're still making "albums"

spotify has a hard enough time getting people to pay $5-10 a month for industry-wide access, so they've got no desire to install further paywalls if they aren't made to

I'd be cool with that as long as I could stream the whole album after buying a physical copy.

yeah there could easily be a paywall access code for the jukebox when you buy the vinyl, just as they do for mp3s now

I think I'd prefer that they offer the paywall songs for free for up to 3 plays or something as well. I tend to fall in love with the entire albums on spotify before I buy a physical copy.

maybe that could be an option in the monthly fee tier

and maybe there's a monthly fee tier where Billy Corgan reads me my horoscope each month

or maybe it's like ads and you have to pay more to not hear Billy's horoscopes

that's all just negotiable details. i think the important factors are

a) digital media is no longer sold. access is leased.

b) the leasing is tiered to reward the acts who inspire album-length engagement.

this is of course if you have an investment in the "album" as a creative effort of economic value. it could be argued we're past that.

as proven by billboard now pretending if you play one song enough times you've bought an album

If we're not going to convince each other of anything, then this is just a game of clever non-sequiturs, and despite earnestly trying for about 10 minutes, I can't think of anything funnier than you calling me a middle manager. So I think you win.

glenn, first of all, it's rather rich of you to act offended by my tone now when your first words of acknowledgment of what i've been saying were I'm not obliged to respond to every comment in a thread in order to justify responding to one. This was a "discussion" you initially were set on talking around, so don't act like i'm the one not engaging earnestly with you. second, i can engage earnestly with someone without having the desire to "convince" them of something when there are more than two people in the conversation. for whatever reason, you are determined ignore serious issues in order to paint your employer as fair. i am bringing up those issues. this is not "a game of clever non-sequiturs" and the fact that you need to pretend that's what happening is pretty damn sad.

Anyone know why Spotify removed the buy-with-one-click button a year or so back? I used that feature a lot and it must have been a long-term money spinner for them.

FYI I would use the shit out a feature that allowed me to buy + download an entire playlist in one bundle.

finally hearing Beyonce

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/one-band-who-loves-spotify
DO read the comments

word "bandcamp" not found in article

not to go into conspiracy mode, but considering he's copping to only making $900 off his band's music, and the comments noted the lack of presence his group has in the media otherwise, i tried to google how the dude previously made his bread in the industry (his bio mentions only the band). nothing obvious came up - lot of "ben berry"s out there - but his band's web presence is honestly kinda odd for a group allegedly trying to hustle through new channels

https://twitter.com/mokehillband (about five tweets over the last two years)

https://www.facebook.com/mokehillmusic (148 likes, a post ever few months with 1 to 3 likes)

http://mokehillmusic.tumblr.com/ (no posts but the original post taken by wired, which has 28 likes)

https://www.tumblr.com/search/moke+hill (only like 3 tags beyond their own post)

three days after the original tumblr post went up, it got referenced in a kansas city star article: http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/back-to-rockville/article3790231.html

then it gets reprinted in wired ten days later.

again, don't wanna start talking about reverse vampires or anything, but it's certainly ODD this group managed to get a couple hundred thousand streams of their song, and their detailed opinion on spotify blasted to ever larger channels within a month

like, at the very least, it'd be neat to know what exactly his unnamed music industry role was and if he still has anything going on with that front beyond this chill, low-key band and pro-spotify pie-charts

Over the course of this year, with no marketing, PR or label support, Spotify has exposed those songs to an audience who would otherwise have little chance of finding us. At last check, our song “Detroit” has been streamed 310,187 times.

so like...politely assuming every listened to the song 10 times or less, that's a minimum of 30,000 listeners for a group putting a remarkably minimal effort into promotion. I think it's fair to ask what exactly Spotify did to "expose" them, and whether it was more than merely throw their song in the pile.

well here's one factoid unmentioned in the article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v78a8TtjrU

psychopomp312 months ago

Found via the Beards and Flannel spotify playlist. Great song, great playlist.

1,368 views

croup in fairness you kinda have some conspiracy glasses about a fair bit of music-biz stuff. like it just feels to me like you often see intent where I'd say there's more "guys throwing darts in the dark"

IDK, seems pretty obvious that Spotify promotes these guys and they shill for Spotify in exchange, not really a "conspiracy"

ray, at this point it's just a fact - a band led by a former industry dude that has less than 100 followers on any social media outlet got 300,000 streams with no promotion, publicity, etc - in his words. the guy wrote a long tumblr post with pie-charts about how spotify got them $900 and all this attention that's going to really help them go places taylor swift's a fool etc etc etc but didn't mention that the song was featured on a spotify-created playlist. the piece got 28 likes, but somehow got to the kansas city star and then reposted on wired.

said tumblr not existing before the post with the pie-chart

That $900 was from 1 song. That's $900 more for that song than they would have made if they weren't on Spotify.

well yeah, especially since they've made zero effort to promote it elsewhere.

there's nothing "fair" about saying "yes but croup you obv don't think spotify is great" in response to that

i'm not making any claims about who did what for whom and why. i noticed something unusual, and found a pretty key piece of information left out. and all i had to do to do that was google the band's name - something you'd think they'd want if they're promoting a band rather than a service.

i should say the "former" status of industry dude is self-professed. no word how he's surviving off $900 made over the last year

so a band makes it onto a playlist. maybe it was chosen via likes/followers/whatever, which is what every music-editorial outlet and radio station does. (there was a long piece about radio 1 wrt this: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/25/radio-1-playlist-secrets-uncovered-battle-of-brands). or maybe there was a promotional/sponsored deal that got them onto this playlist, which is what every music-editorial outlet and radio station does. (see payola, see On the Verge, see a bunch of things I shouldn't have to write out as news.)

or maybe, just maybe, the spotify employee who did that particular playlist really liked that band, or some other band without super-impressive follower numbers (which are gamed and bought so hard that you really can't use them alone as an indicator of anything, but that's another story) and snuck them onto a playlist because they aren't tightly monitored and they can get away with it. when I used to write for a pop site I'd do roundups and throw in, from time to time, videos by small bands I really liked who made music simpatico to what we've been covering. when I currently select tracks for a pop site I do the same. (the nice thing about this, and the thing that people who obsess about followers and shares don't seem to have internalized, is that such acts are far more likely to retweet, post to facebook, whatever, because they are not constantly inundated with requests to do so and they are probably genuinely surprised and happy for the coverage. and you get decent numbers out of that, as in, I've seen the numbers with my own eyes. not colossal, but enough to make it worth doing.)

anyway, I'm not saying it's the most likely possibility, but it's a possibility. the rest is just how the industry works

also, I know very little about how spotify does their official playlists, whether they are done internally (and whether it's editorial or business or interns or whatever) or farmed out to contractors or what, and whether there's tight oversight of analytics or whether you can, as upthread, just throw darts in the dark, but the barrier to entry to placing some band onto a Beards and Flannel playlist is probably far lower than premiering that band on a music website.

It's true, it could just be that a guy at spotify just happened to like a song by a band made of self-professed "industry vets" who then responded to the unexpected attention by promoting spotify rather than their band.

you really think this piece does more for spotify than it does for the band?

I'm pretty curious about spotify playlists myself, I have a friend who works for them in a menial capacity & keep meaning to ask her about this. maybe glenn can shed some light on the subject

Did you read the piece, Katherine? Does it strike you as aimed towards getting them past fifty followers on their bimonthly updated twitter?

For a group excited about engaging the new marketplace they seem to not actually do it, except to thank the angel that plucked them from obscurity and got them 900 bucks

^ works for dogetunes

Excuse me I have been very up front about my relationship with ghosttunes and is appreciate a little faith that my criticisms here are unaffected by Garth being my BFF

I'm with Katherine here. I think this is a band that was living in fair obscurity--I was going to say "toiling" but I don't think they were even doing that--and they got picked up by some chance onto Spotify's playlist. Maybe the maker of that playlist was by a fan, or maybe it was a "music industry vet" friend of theirs. I doubt the band was somehow expected or required to write PR for Spotify in return. If I were in a band that is apparently not trying hard at all to promote themselves (based on dc's social media stats above), I'd be pretty stoked on Spotify's attention too. They wouldn't need to make some nefarious under-the-table deal with me for me to speak positively about my experience.

The thing I noticed most in that article? This obscure band talks about how many plays their one song has gotten--which makes you wonder, "wait, who is this band?"--and what do you know, there's a Spotify embed of their song in the article. So every reader of Wired now has the opportunity to click that stream and help this band make another $900. Of course the hook of the article has to be Spotify and not the band, otherwise no one would read this and no one would click on their track.

just a sweet innocent band of industry vets who barely acknowledge the internet until spotify gives them 900 bucks at which point they write a long article with pie charts about how the future looks bright