some artist tag crapness tho
― Teahouse Foxtrot (blueski), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 16:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
the radio is fun for discovering things totally insane and cheesy
― sonderangerbot, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 16:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
Oh wow the quality is actually pretty good.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 19:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
The radio thing is indeed cool. I'm trying to get it to find me some techno from the 50s.
the quality is good, the range not so much, but this could well prove useful.
― country matters, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 19:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
Presumably the range will increase as they agree deals with more record companies? It seems fine for major label stuff and a quick search for eg Kompakt pulls up a lot.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 20:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
does it pass the melt banana test?
― koogs, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 20:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
the range seems identical to what's on 7digital (and therefore itunes i think). eg they have trina's first and third albums but inexplicably not her second or fourth. i dunno how much use i'll have for spotify but kudos for how well it works, the quality of the tracks etc - the tags need ironing out but i'm sure they'll do this in time.
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 20:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
actually it'll be most useful for stuff like the goldfrapp album this year - i didn't really expect to love it but i wanted to hear it, so obv i wouldn't buy it but couldn't be arsed blagging it. that's a ton of consumer laziness in there.
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 20:59 (5 years ago) Permalink
oh god i should've said i was american! fuck. could've got access to all the hip-hop and r&b which never makes it over to this godforsaken, miserable island.
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 21:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
Do they have a license for the US now? I don't think they did a couple of weeks ago...
Four MB albums, Deano: Teeny Shiny, Bambi's Dilemma, Charlie and Scratch or Stitch.
― Stevie T, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 21:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
does not work in australia yet
― Suggesteban Buttez (jabba hands), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 22:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
Just searched for The Recession and that shows up in its entirety, and it hasn't been released here at all right?
It's really good for the one-album playback when you've no idea if you'll like it or not and can't be arsed downloading.
― Matt DC, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 23:04 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah i'm basically going through albums i've been wondering about checking out but didn't have the hd space for.
― king lame (c sharp major), Wednesday, 3 December 2008 23:05 (5 years ago) Permalink
no the recession was released here, but the label didn't bother telling the pr - she only realised when she looked on amazon and found it had been there for a fortnight
― lex pretend, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 23:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
"80s funk house disco" radio suggests Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers!
― ailsa, Wednesday, 3 December 2008 23:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
> Four MB albums, Deano
thanks. we don't have any, amazon.co.uk mp3 store has scratch n stitch and a couple of tracks from compilations, emusic had a lot... all these people seem to be getting their info from the same places though, they all make the same mistakes (search for broadcast on amazon - details are about duophonic / warp broadcast but the listed albums aren't)
― koogs, Thursday, 4 December 2008 09:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
One detail I like: when it gets to the end of what I've queued up, it just continues with the current album without me needing to ask it to. (I suppose I can see how someone might not like this, though.)
― anatol_merklich, Thursday, 4 December 2008 19:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
Finally got round to sorting scrobbling for this (there's a windows messenger box ticked by default in the last.fm client that somehow stops Scrobblify from working). So far I'm really liking Spotify - handy for hearng stuff you randomly think on that you haven't got in your library or for legal trying before you buy. The adverts don't annoy me in the slightest.
― slag move (onimo), Thursday, 4 December 2008 22:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
fails Boredoms test :(
― slag move (onimo), Thursday, 4 December 2008 23:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
anyone got a spotfiy INVITE?
― jordan s (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 4 December 2008 23:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
If not, try the "oooh ask me please!" option on the website ("Get started" -> email in "Not invited?" field). Took about five days for me, was surprised to get it at all actually.
― anatol_merklich, Thursday, 4 December 2008 23:31 (5 years ago) Permalink
jordan, webmail me an email address to send an invite to.
― slag move (onimo), Thursday, 4 December 2008 23:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
didn't get asked for an invite here, just got straight in
― stet, Thursday, 4 December 2008 23:59 (5 years ago) Permalink
This is amazing! You type in what you want to listen to, and then you are listening to it. all this needs is to work on an iphone, and then i'll buy an iphone, and then i will have achieved bliss.
― Slumpman, Sunday, 7 December 2008 12:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
Mine appears to have made it through an album without giving me any adverts. Maybe they've bumped me up to a pro account without realising it.
― Matt DC, Sunday, 14 December 2008 14:49 (5 years ago) Permalink
you can now scrobble to last.fm from within spotify (it's in 'preferences')
― braveclub, Sunday, 21 December 2008 12:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
That's handy, saves me running that scrobblify thing at the same time.
Spotify lists 'The Prodigy' as 'Prodigy' and makes last.fm think this guy sings Smack My Bitch Up and Out of Space
― dj onimotian (onimo), Sunday, 21 December 2008 13:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
can someone please send me an invite?
― kaiser, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 14:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Chewshabadoo, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 14:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
Think there's still a waiting list though.
<3 this service btw.
― Beloved lightbulb (Neil S), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 14:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
Got in straight away with the link I posted.
― Chewshabadoo, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:08 (5 years ago) Permalink
Aha they've obviously opened it up!
― Beloved lightbulb (Neil S), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:23 (5 years ago) Permalink
Downside is loads more ads (I've heard two during the same album), but you can hear them coming after a while and tune out. Still great.
― chord simple (j.o.n.a), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 15:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
thanks Chewshabadoo but I need an invitation code.
― kaiser, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 19:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
If i hear gareth jones from cardiff reciting pi again i'll scream
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 19:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
And I'm not buying that White Lies record either.
― Beloved lightbulb (Neil S), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 20:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
At least it doesn't scrobble the adverts
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 20:19 (5 years ago) Permalink
jonathan from spotify sounds remarkably like Michael Vaughan
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 20:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
wtf 2 adverts in a row (the 2nd was for that White Lies album)
See what I mean about them? The Killers meet Editors big wowz!
― Beloved lightbulb (Neil S), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 20:44 (5 years ago) Permalink
can i get a spotify invite
― dugong.jpg (jabba hands), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:03 (5 years ago) Permalink
thanks Chewshabadoo but I need an invitation code.Please!― kaiser, Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:55 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmarkcan i get a spotify invite― dugong.jpg (jabba hands), Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:03 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark
― kaiser, Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:55 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark
― dugong.jpg (jabba hands), Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:03 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark
Have any of you actually tried the link posted? Quite a few of my friends in the UK have used the link and joined today. Maybe it doesn't work in other countries...
― Chewshabadoo, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm in the US and that link asks for one of two things:
1)an invite code
2)your email address so they can notify you when it goes "public"
I wonder what their excuse is. Don't they want more people to hear their stupid ads?
― I am a vampire, therefore I take garlic pills (Bimble), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
is it UK only?
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
mr bimble check your email
― Pfunkboy Formerly Known As... (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
It's odd and a fucking pain how Spotify often doesn't specify that tracks are remixes in any way.
― Glansel & Gretel (Raw Patrick), Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:32 (5 years ago) Permalink
i'm in the US and unless something changed in the last few days, we can't use spotify and all the workarounds have been blocked
― miss precious perfect (musically), Wednesday, 21 January 2009 00:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
I selected this a couple of weeks ago, and got an invite from them within the same day. May not be the case now, of course.
― anatol_merklich, Friday, 23 January 2009 06:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm not obliged to respond to every comment in a thread in order to justify responding to one.
Ribot's piece was interesting, and had actual numbers that could be checked. So I checked them. Anybody could have checked them, I didn't use any special Spotify powers, but as far as I'm aware, nobody else did. They revealed that the Spotify "PR" was actually accurate on the subject of rates, which seems to me like a bit of pertinent information.
(Also, I've been on ILX a lot longer than I've been employed by Spotify, so you could probably give me a little more credit. Also, Ribot is welcome to come join this discussion, although I assume in a spirit of fairness some of you will automatically discredit everything he says and try to make him feel unwelcome.)
Determining how many times a song on an old LP or CD would have been played is hard, as for comparison purposes may not actually tell us much, because that number existed in a pretty different universe of choice. Which is partly why industry discussions sometimes opt to focus on total spending per person, which is maybe less abstract. Back when Apple launched iTunes Match, I think somebody contended that its $25 price came about because the major labels believed that was the average per-person spending on music in a year. I don't know if that was true, or whether it was accurate. In some more-recent discussions it's seemed like somebody thinks the figure might be more like $30. So if either of those is close, then a Spotify premium subscriber paying $120/year is definitely an industry positive.
It's a very interesting question, though, whether that $120 gets distributed differently than the old $30. Is the discrepancy between Marc Ribot's potential Spotify earnings and Taylor Swift's bigger or smaller than it would have been in 1989 or 2004? I don't know the answer, and am not even sure the question is phrased correctly.
― glenn mcdonald, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:07 (1 week ago) Permalink
i would like to invite matt damon to this discussion as well, though i promise no fairness and will likely treat mr. damon better than any of you
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:09 (1 week ago) Permalink
(also, when you leap into a conversation about your employer to respond to a link to a relatively simple complaint, get called out for ignoring the larger conversation/issue, then announce you're not "obliged to respond" before implying that we're making you feel unwelcome, i'd say credit is what you're using up)
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:22 (1 week ago) Permalink
Determining how many times a song on an old LP or CD would have been played is hard, as for comparison purposes may not actually tell us much, because that number existed in a pretty different universe of choice.
I tend to think this is waving the problem away a little bit. I'm not sure how the difference in the "universe of choice" matters. As I said, there is a number that exists for how many song plays was averaged for every retail priced CD that was sold in the CD era. If I estimate that at a number that everyone agrees is fair to the consumer, and Spotify's payment structure does not match up to that, I think that's a problem area.
That said, I don't think it's black and white. I think the fact that catalog songs may actually earn more money (possibly considerably more money) from streaming than from reissues and compilations and iTunes downloads, as I was suggesting yesterday might actually by happening, is interesting. Perhaps that's what you mean by the "different universe of choice."
― timellison, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:30 (1 week ago) Permalink
And, I don't know, to me the $25-30 per person amount feels more abstract. I'm not sure why I should figure into the equation all the people who spent nothing at all on music in the LP or CD era.
― timellison, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:31 (1 week ago) Permalink
You're right, I should respond to the actual subject of the thread.
Yes, I have heard of Spotify.
― glenn mcdonald, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:36 (1 week ago) Permalink
what is the larger conversation/issue you need addressed? glenn's post was not at all 'leaping in'. people were posting about that link.
― $0.00 Butter sauce only. No marinara. (Sufjan Grafton), Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
it's been said, but the debate over how big a royalty spotify should give, to which spotify happily responds that it gives the overwhelming majority to "rights holders" ignores a) the lack of transparency on how the money is partitioned to the various rights holders, b) who the rights holders are, c) the relationship of spotify to the rights holders and d) whether the money is given to the rights holders in a manner that allows them to leave out the content creators. to ignore the collusion with the majors through advances and equity renders the remaining discussion purely theoretical.
this has been discussed considerably, and for an employee of the company in question to show up in the midst of this to debate with a blog post, and then huff when people call out the irony shows the disingenuous, selective aggrievement that the ceo drops on the regular.
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:49 (1 week ago) Permalink
first sentence should say "the overwhelming majority of the revenue"
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:50 (1 week ago) Permalink
Thinking about it some more, I guess the different universe of choice is that any subscriber can play any song at any time and this is a far larger pool of potential listeners than the people who could play the song previously (which would consist only of people who bought the album or single and their little brother). So, the argument then would be that Spotify pays less than the old model because of the greater convenience by which a larger pool of people can and will play songs.
There is a logic to that but I have no idea where that leads someone in determining what the actual numbers should be.
― timellison, Thursday, 13 November 2014 01:54 (1 week ago) Permalink
An employee of a major label with info about their part in this would be a good addition to this discussion, I agree.
I'm not involved in business discussions with labels, and presumably couldn't tell you much if I were. But obviously there is a long history there that predates streaming.
― glenn mcdonald, Thursday, 13 November 2014 02:15 (1 week ago) Permalink
i can't imagine enough ppl are listening to hozier's "take me to church" on spotify to make it worth all these primetime commercials i keep seeing for it
― Mordy, Thursday, 13 November 2014 02:17 (1 week ago) Permalink
I get confused when we talk about comparing dollars per individual track stream, versus dollars per listen to tracks on a CD you bought. I'm not sure why they should be compared really, when the topic of the conversation is whether the system makes it economically viable to be a recording artist. If you bought a CD, some portion of that money went to the label and some portion went to the artist, and somehow (in combination with touring and t-shirts and guest appearances in CD-ROM video games etc.) it was enough that many artists could stay in business, even artists who weren't very good, and even indie acts. And that transaction, which on the evidence worked out better for the bands than the streaming universe of today does, was effectively complete when the CD was bought. The band got whatever their cut was, and the consumer got the CD. It doesn't matter whether the consumer listened to it once or a million bajillion times, or threw it out the car window on the way home.
The only scenarios (in my mind) where this starts to look less than equitable are
(a) where the royalty structure was a bullshit ripoff for the band, which obviously happened a lot and shouldn't be discounted(b) where the CD sucks and it wasn't worth it - not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and that was what reviews and stuff were for,
and (c) where, and this I think is what timellison is hypothesizing a few posts up, the person listens to the CD too many times, and the artist would have actually made more money on streaming. Okay sure, but how often would this ever possibly happen, given that .0007 number? Even Taylor Swift, who is a huge star with a grab-bag's worth of catalog gold, has determined that this does not work for her. The idea also casts artists as curiously risk-taking: the chance of scoring a bunch of "Ain't Too Proud to Begs" is, er, sort of low, right? Like basically the odds of "will I be as successful as Taylor Swift"? And if you go for that, in the meantime you say goodbye to all those upfront sales of a whole album of material. I'm probably just out of my depth here though.
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 13 November 2014 02:26 (1 week ago) Permalink
If the average royalty rate for a major label $16.98 CD was a dollar, it's easy to calculate how many song streams on Spotify generate more than that. The answer is that you would need at least 143 song streams to generate more than a dollar in revenue.
But that's a dollar in revenue that goes to the label. If the label pays the artist 20% of what they get from Spotify, then an artist now needs at least 715 streams to make the same dollar they earned from the sale of one CD.
― timellison, Thursday, 13 November 2014 02:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
I hate to interrupt, and I for one think these are great posts, but the one thing performance-wise that irritates me - since you mentioned "Take Me to Church"...I hate being interrupted during a session of obscure minimal techno with, like, two Bruno Mars songs that stylistically have nothing to do with what I like. Plus screamy pop tracks when I'm in the middle of some cool disco.
This seems relatively new behavior, it seems crappy and anti-music fan. We all heard that radio crap they keep pushing. Electronic selections are terrible.
Also, I have to laugh, half the damn ads are for Spotify, what they can't sell enough ads?
― Threat Assessment Division (I M Losted), Thursday, 13 November 2014 03:03 (1 week ago) Permalink
Well, less-terrible algorithmic suggestions actually are in my sphere! Tell me more. We're you listening to a playlist or artist radio or what? And which one, and what bad tracks came on? And were you on mobile or desktop, free or premium?
Or just take notes the next time it happens. Post here or email me (glennm at spotify), whichever you prefer.
― glenn mcdonald, Thursday, 13 November 2014 04:15 (1 week ago) Permalink
The one big negative about going to the premium account, aside from the fact that there is now no apparent way to view other account types or access the student discount: I feel totally cut off from any exciting developments in the field of advanced auto parts.
― Doctor Casino, Thursday, 13 November 2014 04:19 (1 week ago) Permalink
As I said, there is a number that exists for how many song plays was averaged for every retail priced CD that was sold in the CD era. If I estimate that at a number that everyone agrees is fair to the consumer, and Spotify's payment structure does not match up to that, I think that's a problem area.
spotify's payment structure can't be based on that, though. it has to be based on how much money spotify actually has. which is an entirely different question.
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 13 November 2014 04:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
it seems odd to me that people like taylor swift, who is part of the universal music distribution system, are directing all of their anger at spotify rather than at the major music distributors, like universal music, that negotiated the exact rates that spotify is now paying her. and universal had all the leverage in the world when these negotiations happened. spotify wouldn't have lasted a week without their content.
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 13 November 2014 04:40 (1 week ago) Permalink
Did she actually point the finger at spotify's royalty rates? I thought it was about the lack of a premium tier (meaning albums could only be heard by paying customers), rewarding folks willing to pay full price, etc.
Any major label artist making a "spotify has so much, we have so little" claim is ignoring the middle man, that's for sure.
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 04:53 (1 week ago) Permalink
I think the key difference between CD plays and Spotify plays is that you got no CD plays from all the people who didn't buy your CD. If the average music buyer bought 2 CDs a year, you had only those 2 chances to hit the $1 jackpot. Spotify is trying to both increase the total amount of prize money and distribute it more broadly. I think almost by definition this has to shift some money from the most popular artists to the next tier. (Especially if the occasional super-popular artist magnanimously removes her music from Spotify to give other artists a chance.)
But it also seems quite possible to me that there are artists who disproportionately appeal to the sort of people who used to buy 20 or 50 CDs a year, not 2, and if those people are now only spending $120, the bands they stream are getting less from them. But here too the idea, at least, is that you can reach the larger audience of people who listen to your kind of thing. But that's bound to work out better for some artists than others. And it definitely seems like it has the potential to penalize artists that people don't listen to so often or so repeatedly.
― glenn mcdonald, Thursday, 13 November 2014 04:56 (1 week ago) Permalink
the head of her label, scott borchetta, brought up the premium tier thing specifically. taylor has pointed several fingers, including at how much money spotify pays.
― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 13 November 2014 05:35 (1 week ago) Permalink
I honestly do not give a shit whether Spotify royalty rates reduce the number of millions of dollars a year Taylor Swift makes.
The key thing for me is this (from the Ribot piece)
Indie artists may only constitute 38 percent of market share, but they represent well over 90 percent of working musicians, and a great majority of works released.
And this isn't Spotify's fault. Other streaming services pay similarly. It's a step up from not getting paid at all for people listening to music online/downloading/etc. Ideally, musicians would get paid more by Spotify and these services, but I feel like the harsh truth is at this point, if something isn't easily accessible online for free, people will just listen to something else. And to Spotify's credit, they actually pay based on what people actually listen to as opposed to ASCAP where they use questionable formulas to distribute money collected from royalty payers.
― sarahell, Thursday, 13 November 2014 11:34 (1 week ago) Permalink
I'm actually quite surprised that Spotify isn't offering premium-only content at this stage, especially for something as obviously massive as the Taylor album.
― Matt DC, Thursday, 13 November 2014 12:21 (1 week ago) Permalink
Glenn, I was listening to electronic comps - not radio. Also electronic albums. I use the free service. It would be nice to have electronic or dance instead of pop tracks I've already heard.
― Threat Assessment Division (I M Losted), Thursday, 13 November 2014 13:29 (1 week ago) Permalink
when you have a fairly hefty % of the 20th century's recorded music available, paying extra for a few more albums seems like a bad decision. there are actually very few artists w/ much leverage for that reason, oh no the eagles are gone I guess I will listen to one million other things.
like, the single most successful musician in america currently has some leverage but not even that much.
― iatee, Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:27 (1 week ago) Permalink
like nobody wants to have the discussion 'how much recorded music should be produced?' and it sounds kinda awful to say 'there are probably too many artists'.
if the amount that should be made is always going to be dependent on market forces, then the answer should probably be 'less'.
― iatee, Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:34 (1 week ago) Permalink
Earlier this week, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek suggested in a lengthy response that Swift would’ve been on track to earn $6 million a year from the streaming provider. Now both sides are acknowledging Swift’s actual Spotify earnings have been much less than that, which means the other 99.999 percent of recording acts are earning much, much less.
In Taylor Swift-Spotify Debate, Sparks Fly Over Numbers
― a pleasant little psychedelic detour in the elevator (Amory Blaine), Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:36 (1 week ago) Permalink
considering the number fudging coming from both sides of the debate, i wish people would stop jerking off trying to make their own calculations off the scraps provided and accept a few key concepts - renting your music out gets you less than selling it, renting your music gets you more than nothing, etc - so we could stop pretending there's some magic number where everyone gets a fair share. The game is RIGGED. And while it was rigged before spotify showed up, spotify accepted deals that mean even if your label is a profit-sharing bohemian dream, the service itself is set to benefit the major labels through your involvement. Superchunk putting all their album on spotify means a) only patricians and album art addicts need buy them and b) the service gets a tiny bit closer to having the monopoly on the market it needs to reach that IPO/buyout stage where they and the major labels reap a payday unrelated to royalties.
If your response to this is "well sure who knows what's going on with the numbers but in a dream world where streaming is the only option let's see a CD gets say 8 spins..." you need to accept that Spotify, through the nature of the compromises it made to get the major label catalog, is NOT that dream world. "How would artists survive through streaming" and "how would artists survive through spotify" are not the same things.
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:06 (1 week ago) Permalink
the irony of the "yes but piracy" argument is that the ceos of spotify and bittorrent CAME from the piracy-driven tech world. They're like mobsters trying to go legit. They know the companies they came up through could be decimated through lawsuits and other legal actions, so they're trying to make a deal with multinationals where both get rich and nobody goes to jail. But the idea that these guys are devoted to making sure artists can survive is absurd considering they came a world where artists' rights meant even less.
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:29 (1 week ago) Permalink
accept a few key concepts - renting your music out gets you less than selling it
As I've said, I'm not at all sure that that's true of the situation right now with catalog items.
― timellison, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:45 (1 week ago) Permalink
i've accepted that
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:46 (1 week ago) Permalink
and my idea of treating streaming like a jukebox rather than a surrogate for album sales actually acknowledges the hypothetical that the "rights holders" of a temptations hit might get more from leaving it on spotify than taking it off.
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:49 (1 week ago) Permalink
but the idea that fugazi gets more from putting the whole of end hits on spotify than they would from just putting up three tracks and forcing fans to buy the rest is pretty nuts
― da croupier, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:51 (1 week ago) Permalink
Thread Assessment Division: ah, thanks. The extra tracks you get on the free service are due for some improvement. If you feel like it you might want to try artist radio again, as we've made some changes to that very recently. And/or check out everynoise.com for a lot of genre-based playlists that ought to pretty internally consistent...
― glenn mcdonald, Thursday, 13 November 2014 15:59 (1 week ago) Permalink
interesting stuff on this thread, but good lord, spotify/streaming discussions mainly just make me feel depressed
― tylerw, Thursday, 13 November 2014 16:12 (1 week ago) Permalink
where does Bandcamp fit in with all of this? is their free streaming bitrate comparable to free Spotify? I know that Edward from the Legendary Pink Dots said they are making enough to live on off of their Bandcamp page, fwiw, but they are an "established" band.
― sleeve, Thursday, 13 November 2014 16:17 (1 week ago) Permalink
^ I was wondering about the economics of bandcamp too, not so much the streaming side of things but it seems to be the digital distribution method of choice for a lot of the non-major label Australian music I listen to
― badg, Thursday, 13 November 2014 18:27 (1 week ago) Permalink
Ivor Novello Awards Chairman Gary Osborne (whose songs include Elton John’s Blue Eyes) comments, “No matter how bad it is for the artists it’s a whole lot worse for the writers! People don’t understand the difference between the writer and the act, but artists receive a far higher income from streaming than the people who write the songs. This is because deals were done first with the record labels that represent the artists, after which a few scraps seem to have been tossed to the songwriters and their publishers as an afterthought.”
^^important point that i haven't seen noted too much
― lex pretend, Friday, 14 November 2014 13:53 (1 week ago) Permalink
it should be noted, on the other hand, that terrestrial radio (at least in the u.s.) is really good for the writers and really bad for the artists, and that is unlikely to ever change because the radio lobby is still a lot more powerful than the streaming lobby.
― fact checking cuz, Friday, 14 November 2014 14:03 (1 week ago) Permalink