Spotify - anyone heard of it?

I'm more saying that if Spotify became basically whatever is on the radio, I wouldn't pay for it.

well from the beginning i said artists should give streaming what they would GIVE the radio, not that spotify should only have what is ON the radio

There have been tons of models showing (many detailed in this thread) that if streaming services can get a decent number of paying customers (at $10/month),l there will be plenty of money to go around

Except there is never enough money to go around when some parties want moooooooooooooore.

one big difference between industries that's part of the huge difference between netflix and spotify is film/tv has pretty effective unions for actors and writers while musicians' unions aren't nearly as common (in pop at least) or powerful, way more open shop in practice (i mean gang of four crossed picket lines). key exception of music industry where unions are a force is w/ classical music which is making me wonder now if that's why so many classical recordings are difficult to find on spotify or only get released hella later or disappear after a month or so. the artists that have pulled their stuff or only allowed their stuff to stream after a while (the big catalog guys - zep, floyd, ac/dc, eagles)(saw a 'best of apple records (non-beatles)' that came out years ago but was hyped as a new release made me wonder if spotify could somehow get that holy grail) have generally been big artists making leverage plays, their may be lip service to 'artists deserve to be rewarded' but really they've meant 'fuck you pay me', the only exception to this has kinda been taylor swift and even then it was just 'dear apple plz pay something anything'.

i really wanna know if badfinger genuinely doesn't want their shit on spotify or if they're just held hostage by paul'n'yoko

or rather the badfinger estate

When blank cassettes (and CDs?) were first introduced, wasn't there some sort of tax rolled into their price to counter piracy/copy losses? In theory, given that the internet is overwhelmingly copyrighted material being viewed for free (not just downloading music/movies), they could just slap a buck or two onto internet service bills, and that would make a ton of money. But then there's the problem of moooooooore. How can you share the revenue generated from such a seemingly equitable solution when some think (justifiably or not) that they deserve more, or generate more, or more more more mine mine mine. I wish there were some sort of one-stop shop for streaming. I'd pay more for that. But no one wants to give up any share of the potential pie, no matter how small the slivers are getting.

also w/ classical profits from recordings really kinda are an ancillary benefit, it's not the main gig and maybe never was? (even when classical had a larger presence in the popular sphere it meant more 'toscanini gets a huge contract from nbc radio') anna netrebko would feel it if her money from recordings went away for sure but i can't imagine it aproaches what she gets from performing.

xpost
There's that, and then there's the American thing of "I'm not paying to support a bunch of artists that I don't personally listen to!"

even though the big boys are def just holding out for what's theirs rather than what's everybodys, i'm glad they're doing it so that maybe little people will realize it's fucked. some say my fantasy of people only putting promotional tracks on spotify would be a dealbreaker for the service and artist but tell that to the beygency

lol croup after i posted that i thought 'wait..so is badfinger...' and the answer is still kinda no, they're not really on there BUT there is a comp that has the big apple corps hits (finally a non-re-recorded 'no matter what'!) on there that wasn't there the last time i checked (which wasn't super recently but was more recently than 2010, when that comp came out). the first james taylor album is on spotify now which wasn't there before.

"I'm not paying to support a bunch of artists that I don't personally listen to!"

Well, ads used to take care of this, across the board. We paid with our ears and eyeballs. But now that we have (or were given, or stole) greater choice and freedom, we also have ways to avoid the ads. Which is what single-handedly has wrecked havoc across all number of mediums (radio, TV, newspapers).

xpost oooh didn't know they finally got a (non-re-recorded) comp up

despite my antipathy towards streaming in theory i am a big fan of "oh apparently whoever has the rights to the Giant Records catalog coughed Tara Kemp up" moments

latest and greatest was the belated arrival of "Return Of The Mack"

but then as i said, it's only the mark morrison album tracks that should be withheld

Not bummed about destroying the advertising model. Cuz I AM A SOCIOPATH!

i remember when that tidal ad came out thinking 'what gets me to sign up is paul and yoko walking thru that door w/ robert fripp and bob segar'.

otmfm

schwantz if you take from me saying a stance was "solipsistic-to-sociopathic" that i'm saying a group of people are sociopaths...not my intent, and i apologize if i invoked the new godwin's law or something

I don't really see how this Beatles material is such a big deal according to just about every article/opinion I read about it - a boomer band who, fifty years ago, recorded a mere five great albums shouldn't in any way be relevant to the livelihood of thousands of musicians today and for the next decades. I mean, if you like em, just fucking steal those red and blue albums and then enjoy the millions of other song that *are* out there on whatever service you sign up for.

which five

Nevermind, OU812, The Chronic, Trout Mask Replica and Saturday Night Fever

wtf how could you list the five greatest beatles albums and leave out sgt pepper u mad

I don't really see how this Beatles material is such a big deal http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bazald/l/tutorial/zenitank/boom.png according to just about every article/opinion I read about it - a boomer band https://www.facebook.com/PaulOrselliWorkshop?ref=nf who, fifty years ago, recorded a mere five great albums https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3531249963/96346c0ee3449c2eddea7920e705a6af_bigger.jpeg shouldn't in any way be relevant to the livelihood of thousands of musicians today and for the next decades. I mean, if you like em, just fucking steal those red and blue albums and then enjoy the millions of other song that *are* out there on whatever service you sign up for.

http://www.ringophone.com/HDcolorWP/atomic-explosion_.jpg
― Siegbran, Friday, July 31, 2015 2:16 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

WREAKED havoc, jfc

anyone who wants Spotify URLs to open in the desktop app ...

glenn advised to just click "Play in Spotify" but I never saw that option, it just opened the player. Figured it out: open a Spotify URL. Click the settings gear in the Spotify webapp, look for a setting like "Open Spotify URLs in desktop app". Confusingly, it will have a checkmark, but if the checkmark is gray it's not enabled. Click it so it's green. Next time I opened a Spotify URL it gave me the option to Play in Spotify before it opened the web player.

will try that! Thanks!

Well I was going to write them down as an overhyped Skiffle combo from Hamburg but that would be a bit harsh. They did come up some quality tunes over the years and i am the walrus.

step back everyone, siegbran of internet has something to say about the beatles, and it may shock you

trigger warning, beatles fans

I'm fine with the Beatles and you might've missed the hyperbole here but in all seriousness, why the Beatles catalogue is brought up in so many articles as some sort of big (psychological?) barrier to success for online music services is baffling to me.

because the Beatles are the baseline measure of what music people want to have available

It might have something to do with them being the biggest selling artist of all time.

they lack the cool factor of your favorite black metal bands, admittedly, but popularity counts for something too

it also has something to do w/ them being the second (hell maybe first by this point) highest selling group this century

they've also been, for quite a long time now, very canny and deliberate about how they handle their catalog. every other act just belches their catalog onto compact disc during the 80s, the beatles manage to turn it into an event that stretches out months and gets crazy press. when they eventually remaster them and finally put them on itunes, another event. you want to license one of their songs, good fucking luck and break out the check book. there are other catalogs that have been just as eternal in terms of still yielding ridiculous sales decades after release but i think you have to actually know or care about those things to know that spotify getting ac/dc on board is a huge deal. since michael jackson and nike and probably earlier everyone knows the beatles catalog is valuable.

Xpost I know it's wreaked havoc, a bugaboo of mine, too. That's how it came out on the phone. But can't edit posts ...

ha, OK, glad u understand

Beatles albums should be public fucking domain.

big artists making leverage plays, their may be lip service to 'artists deserve to be rewarded' but really they've meant 'fuck you pay me', the only exception to this has kinda been taylor swift and even then it was just 'dear apple plz pay something anything'.

― balls, Friday, July 31, 2015 2:41 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nah Taylor Swift's thing came across as blatantly cynical marketing to me. Apple just decides to change a giant multi-million dollar deal within days of her tweeting about it give me a break.

Tho who can fault her Apple is historically a place for true artists, after all they had John Lennon in their advertisements /s

it also has something to do w/ them being the second (hell maybe first by this point) highest selling group this century

I know, their fanbase bought them on vinyl, then on CD in the 90s, and now again digitally. They've been in the sweet spot for making oodles of money off recorded music in the historically small window when that was possible. Good for them. Yes, boomers are still a big market to milk but in ten years time their hearing's gone, along with their ability use a touchscreen or mouse. Sinatra and Elvis, similarly worthy and immensely popular artists, are past that point already and are (by and large) irrelevant to the business model of streaming/digital music.

I mean, are these streaming services intended as museums or art galleries?

my name is Noodle Vague and i approve this message

why the Beatles catalogue is brought up in so many articles as some sort of big (psychological?) barrier to success for online music services is baffling to me.

are people really still writing that? i hardly see their name mentioned at all anymore in analyses of the streaming world, except maybe in passing.

(i see the name "taylor swift" a lot. but i don't think she was ever in the beatles, was she? that was james taylor, right?)

http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2015/08/01/why-the-beatles-are-letting-down-a-generation/

haha

the continued absense from Spotify, Apple Music and their ilk is thanks to the same ‘we’re premium and deserve special treatment’ attitude that meant I could never afford their CDs as a kid because they were generally priced way higher than anyone else’s even though they were already three decades old by that point

Uh, what? I distinctly remember buying the catalog as a kid and the CDs all costing the same as other music. Fugazi CDs were cheaper but that's about it.

most CD's by 60s groups were mid-price though except for the beatles & the stones. Pretty sure that is what the writer meant.

Also Beatles cd's were £15 here. Never in a sale

Yeah, what? I have no memory at all of Beatles cds costing more than anything else. And considering they've only reissued a big deal remastered series once it's not even like they're continually trying to gouge people who want to own Beatles cds.

Maybe it's different over there, but in the US them shits have always been priced in line with everything else.