Apple Music vs Spotify

again, in many cases you are mistaking "would voluntarily pay" with "are able under our budget to pay"

well that's a whole other thing, but "afford" is a slippery concept. When there was no spotify, many of us "afforded" paying more for physical recordings (or else taped/burned them from friends, I guess).

you're either referring to a time when illegal downloading was rampant, or when the economy was not a shambles

not that all of this doesn't have moral ramifications -- of course it does, no one is disputing it. but treating it as a completely free moral choice with no other variables -- the equivalent of one of those "flip the switch and kill one person / leave the switch and kill ten" questions -- gets into dicey territory fast.

Do all of the people who claim they "can't afford" music also never travel, never eat in restaurants, never go out to bars, never see movies, never purchase books, never partake in any form of entertainment that costs money? I'm sure there are some who fit that category, but there are plenty of people with some discretionary spending who make the rational choice that they "can't afford" to purchase music -- as long as there is a cheaper or free alternative. If the alternative wasn't there, they'd pay for it, and some other part of discretionary spending would take the hit.

that naivety is built into the article tho. in any retail system handwringing about distributors driving down the profits of manufacturers is addressing the wrong problem - you're decrying a feature of the economic system that's intrinsic to that economic system

or in brief, lol ethical consumerism

Do all of the people who claim they "can't afford" music also never travel, never eat in restaurants, never go out to bars, never see movies, never purchase books, never partake in any form of entertainment that costs money? I'm sure there are some who fit that category, but there are plenty of people with some discretionary spending who make the rational choice that they "can't afford" to purchase music -- as long as there is a cheaper or free alternative. If the alternative wasn't there, they'd pay for it, and some other part of discretionary spending would take the hit.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:55 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is perilously close to the "if they're really that poor then why do they have cell phones?" argument

of course anyone who can afford a computer/smartphone and streaming subscription can afford a CD player and CDs/mp3 player and mp3s; the difference is that one is a fixed cost and one is a potentially infinite cost.

Define "fixed cost" here; assuming you mean "a predictable amount every month", either method can be put into a bounded budget controlled by the consumer, making either a predictable amount every month. One does give you more music at your disposal than the other; I'm not disputing that. And xposts make me think that we're pretty much on the same page here, I'm just being kind of a dick about it.

We all (I assume) agree that minimum wage should be raised even if it means paying slightly higher prices but I doubt many of us would voluntarily pay a higher "support workers" price where a lower one was offered.

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that making that choice when it's offered to you and you have the ability to pay the higher price shows what your actual priorities are, and if your self-image as a "good person" involves the other choice, walk the walk or stop lying to yourself.

Do all of the people who claim they "can't afford" music also never travel, never eat in restaurants, never go out to bars, never see movies, never purchase books, never partake in any form of entertainment that costs money? I'm sure there are some who fit that category, but there are plenty of people with some discretionary spending who make the rational choice that they "can't afford" to purchase music -- as long as there is a cheaper or free alternative. If the alternative wasn't there, they'd pay for it, and some other part of discretionary spending would take the hit.

― five six and (man alive), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:55 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is perilously close to the "if they're really that poor then why do they have cell phones?" argument

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:57 AM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, it's really not at all

Define "fixed cost" here; assuming you mean "a predictable amount every month", either method can be put into a bounded budget controlled by the consumer, making either a predictable amount every month. One does give you more music at your disposal than the other; I'm not disputing that. And xposts make me think that we're pretty much on the same page here, I'm just being kind of a dick about it.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:57 AM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that would indeed be the definition of a "fixed cost"

besides, people who use spotify rather than purchase music are not limited to the poor

true, I imagine they also include a lot of middle- and/or working-class people whose budgets more easily allow for $15 a month than $15 a CD

I don't disagree. What I'm saying is that making that choice when it's offered to you and you have the ability to pay the higher price shows what your actual priorities are, and if your self-image as a "good person" involves the other choice, walk the walk or stop lying to yourself.

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:57 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Oh, you drive a car to work? You turned on your air conditioning today? STOP PRETENDING YOU CARE AT ALL WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PLANET!

Except if I don't drive my car to work or turn on my air conditioning, it will do exactly zero to slow the advance of global warming. Only collective action works. Just like my putting an extra few hundred dollars a year, in aggregate, in the pockets of all of the artists I listen to will make almost no difference to their lives.

I mean, if someone is living on minimum wage but has made the choice to be on Apple Music, I'm not churlish enough to be all "you fiend, taking music from the mouths of starving musicians" because that person is doing some budgetary magic of their own to even be in the game (possibly/probably from a losing position). I'm talking about people like me who claim they can't afford to pay for albums, even MP3 albums, but love their favorite artists and lament that the industry is imploding around them; they are lying to everyone, including themselves. If they wanted to, they could afford it; they are choosing not to pay. And what I am saying is "be honest about the ramifications of that choice".

xp: actually I take public transportation to work because I want to limit the driving I do as part of being a responsible citizen in a city that affords me transportation options, but apparently that's meaningless and I should go out and buy 10 Hummers that I just let idle on the side street next to our house

true, I imagine they also include a lot of middle- and/or working-class people whose budgets more easily allow for $15 a month than $15 a CD

― for sale: baby shoes, never worn your ass (katherine), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:01 AM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not arguing with this at all! Anyone with a fixed amount of money to spend, which is most of us, is sensitive to what things cost, and is going to be better off financially when they spend less. Still, if there was no Spotify (and no downloading), some of those working/middle class people would decide it's worth spending $15/CD on music (and maybe this would mean slightly less on some other discretionary item), and in aggregate this might amount to more money going to artists. Not that I think going back to that model is on the table.

I would like to reiterate that my actual point here is "do what you want to do but don't lie to yourself and everyone else about what you are doing"

xp: actually I take public transportation to work because I want to limit the driving I do as part of being a responsible citizen in a city that affords me transportation options, but apparently that's meaningless and I should go out and buy 10 Hummers that I just let idle on the side street next to our house

― I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:05 AM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I take public transit to work too. I also live in a 1300 sf apt though and I do use AC, not cranked, but I use it. I could live with my entire family in a 550 sf studio and avoid AC and dramatically cut my carbon footprint. I could never take an airplane again anywhere and live a perfectly fine life. I could switch to an all-vegan diet. Should I stop thinking of myself as a "good person" because I don't do these things? Do I have no right to argue that there should be collective/regulatory action on global warming because I live an American lifestyle and don't fully "walk the walk"?

What does any of this have to do with apple music vs spotify.

There should be a separate ethics and economics of streaming music thread.

Should I stop thinking of myself as a "good person" because I don't do these things?

Either that or you should change your definition of what a "good person" is.

Also, Jeff is right.

since when did ilm threads stick to the opening point? lol

xp

I know, crazy idea!

there's no such thing as a "good person," people make thousands if not millions of moral decisions per day, if anything thinking of oneself as a "good person" makes one more likely to be complacent about them

lol Ethics and Economics of Streaming sounds like it's be a ___ for non-majors course, only I'm not sure what dept

Jeff killed the thread

the line graphs showing total dollars spent on music over the past 30 years are a horror show for the music industry. what i'm not sure is whether it's the casual fans who are to blame (they didn't buy music anyway, right?), or the hardcore fans like the writer of the article above who have abandoned their expensive habits (are there enough of these people to make a difference?)

i mean, what's easy to forget as someone who Loves Music is that the vast majority of people never bought CDs except as special occasions anyway. like waaay less than 1 a month. so it seems reasonable to suggest that past a certain threshold, streaming subscribers + (diminished) purchasers would on aggregate be spending more on music than just purchasers did before.

spotify

saving money isn't always a choice, often it is more like a necessity

that is of course true. but if that's the case for this particular invisible oranges writer, then his using spotify isn't doing any financial harm to anyone, because he wouldn't have/couldn't have bought all those records anyway.

Stop Thinking of Yourself as a Good Person: The Ethics and Economics of Music Streaming

Still marveling at how big the gulf is between Apple Music's sleek iPhone UI and its molasses-slow iTunes UI

a couple of things have been bugging me about Apple Music lately.

1. Artists with long discographies don't have all their albums pop up under the Albums list. They stop after going back some amount. So if I just want to listen to some Bob Dylan album from the 80s I have to know the name of the album and search for that. Rather than being able to use Apple Music to research someone's career and listen to it, I have to do research in a browser and then search for the specific thing. That's annoying.

2. I can't figure out how to get songs from my CDs onto my iPhone. I want to sync it tony Mac but I have been using it for months and it wants me to set it up as new. So, I guess so much for that idea. This was going to be the big benefit for me. Maybe I should see if I can do this on the Spotify mobile app.

Also, I would like to be able to create and share playlists and have collaborative playlists.

The real benefits of Apple Music seem to be:
1. It's pretty
2. Taylor Swift
That might not be enough in the end.

Benefits of Spotify = No Taylor Swift.

I wonder if having the free option might be the difference in the results?
How many here refuse to pay to stream?

so funny to have had to defend vinyl vs CDs and now to have to defend CDs vs streaming...

the line graphs showing total dollars spent on music over the past 30 years are a horror show for the music industry. what i'm not sure is whether it's the casual fans who are to blame (they didn't buy music anyway, right?), or the hardcore fans like the writer of the article above who have abandoned their expensive habits (are there enough of these people to make a difference?)

At my peak I was spending $3000 and change a year

2. I can't figure out how to get songs from my CDs onto my iPhone.

you're meant to:

1. rip your cd into an itunes desktop app at minimum 96 kbps
2. let icloud music library match it wrong and bugger up all your tags and artwork either match it with a streamable version it already has, or pop all your files into ~the cloud~ for retrieval
3. let your phone download a drm-encumbered version off the cloud

or, just find your cd in the apple music library and stream that.

apple sees downloading as "legacy" and CDs as basically hitting rocks together for fun

otm. the obvious problem with a streaming world is mobile data caps, which apple presumably hopes will just magically expand. even free wifi points won't always let you sit there and stream beats 1 all day. if you're at home and your country is industrialised, fine. if your work is obscenely generous with what you're allowed to do on its internet, fine.

No wonder the telecoms industry is behind streaming. You're still paying for your music and the musicians get the least money unless they're taylor swift or Metallica type superstars

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/aug/05/noel-gallagher-slams-orwellian-apple-music

He added: “It’s not playing the Kinks.

excellent point grandpa

i mean i get that his shtick is captain grumpypants but it's 2015 now. nobody's confiscating his kinks or his personal record collection.

Oh you were talking about Noel Gallagher, not deems.

not that noel isn't captain grumpypants but i think "a world music station is orwellian" and "i ain't listenin, unless they play all the shit i want to hear" are two distinct sentiments. the interviewer may have even asked him "would you listen to it?" after he said the orwell bit.

you're meant to:

1. rip your cd into an itunes desktop app at minimum 96 kbps
2. let icloud music library match it wrong and bugger up all your tags and artwork either match it with a streamable version it already has, or pop all your files into ~the cloud~ for retrieval
3. let your phone download a drm-encumbered version off the cloud

Thanks!

Well, it looks like my Mac must be too old for this shit, because I can't update iTunes anymore. So, I can't use iCloud Music Library and I can't even begin to do this.

then I looked into doing something similar on Spotify and it was easy peasy. I just made a playlist on my Mac with local files and then downloaded them to my phone with the Mobile app. Unfortunately, those files are not integrated into the search function, but fuck it, it's easier than dealing with Apple Music. I guess I've made my decision. Although, I really don't want to use up that space on my phone for music...

If the locally-originated files are not accessible via the search in spotify mobile, how do you get to them?

I have to play it through the playlist. You set up a playlist with local files on the desktop client, and the on the phone choose to make that playlist available offline on my phone and it downloads all of them.

That's cool - no more iTunes!

With Apple Music's spatial/lossless audio supposedly coming this month, has anyone noticed signs that it's already started? A lot of my newer music files no longer show bitrates, which indicates they may have already been converted over to the new format. All of the songs I added from January 2019 and earlier, however, haven't been touched.

I'm thinking about signing up for Apple Music, but I don't want to mess up my current iTunes library of files that I've ripped and downloaded over many years. It's proven difficult to find a straight answer to these questions online... maybe very few people care about these things...

(I would be using it on PC + iPhone)

-If I subscribe to Apple Music, is there still a way for me to view just my local library, or is it always mixed in with my streaming library?

-Can I assign my own iTunes metadata (genre especially) to streaming albums? One item on the growing list of reasons why I don't like Spotify is that it is impossible to organize albums unless you make playlists out of them and manually move them around.

-Can I use iCloud to upload all my local files so that they are available to stream and/or download to my phone?

Bottom line is I'm scared to fuck up my current iTunes setup because I've worked hard on it - ripping, tagging, retagging downloads, etc.

I don't want to add to the confusion by speculating. But, yes, you can upload to the cloud and stream. I use this a lot as I listen to a lot of... obscurities.

Bottom line is I'm scared to fuck up my current iTunes setup because I've worked hard on it - ripping, tagging, retagging downloads, etc.

-If I subscribe to Apple Music, is there still a way for me to view just my local library, or is it always mixed in with my streaming library?

I was worried about this too, but took the chance and started the free trial of Apple Music earlier in the week. My library seems to be fine, segregated from the streaming service.

-Can I assign my own iTunes metadata (genre especially) to streaming albums?

I don't think so, but that seems a good thing to me -- any integration of Library and Streaming would give Apple an inroad to fuck up your files.

The Search function seems weird and fucked up. I was doing some basic searches to get a feel for the interface and immediately ran into problems. If you go to the Beatles artist page, scroll down to Albums and click "Show All," you don't get all of them. The only versions of Let It Be showing are ...Naked and the 2021 mix. You have to do a search for "Beatles Let It Be" before you can see the original 1970 album and the 57-track Super Deluxe version. None of the Super Deluxe versions are visible in Beatles > Albums > Show All.

I switched from paid Spotify to Apple Music a long time ago, but sometimes I'd still open up Spotify for particular music discovery: search for a particular song -> browse playlists that include that song. For whatever reason, Apple Music's search results never provided anything useful for playlists beyond the Apple-branded playlists.

It seems like Spotify might've recently updated their search results for the playlist section to prioritize playlist titles (and maybe just not include tracklists in search result criteria, which seems crazy?). Is there a way to do this in Spotify or Apple Music that I'm missing? Or is there another big music streaming service that would allow me to search and browse playlists via search for a particular song (or songs)?