giving away free streaming music was stupid in the first place.
its a business model that won't lead to long term success no matter how many ads you dump in the users face.
How is it stupid!? This is exactly how radio has always worked. Free music or talk and all being paid for by ad's. Why would it be any different because it's streaming?
Artists didn't put themselves into this position, at least not directly. Case in point -- one of the biggest pop stars in the business, Taylor Swift, cannot be found on Spotify, because she controls her music.
Labels and publishers are the real bad guys here, for many more reasons than pimping out their artists for pennies to Spotify.
You can make a point that artists do put themselves in this position. They are the ones that sign the record contract. Taylor Swift is just one of a very select few that actually control their own music.
I can see how you think labels and publishers are the bad guys. They are making money at the expensive of the artists they sign, but at the same time, the artists make a ton of money as well indirectly. The labels put the music out there on sites such as iTunes, Spotify, etc. Doing so gives artists huge exposure, which in turn, translates to ticket sales for concerts. For example, just say you discover a new artist on Spotify. If you see that artist is coming to your area, you are more inclined to attend their show. Artists make their money from shows. They may not be making much from Spotify, but in reality, they do get tons of exposure which translates to concert ticket sales.
How is it stupid!? This is exactly how radio has always worked. Free music or talk and all being paid for by ad's. Why would it be any different because it's streaming?
Quite so. Radio doesn't make any money for artists either. Performance royalties are paid by broadcasters, which benefit the publishers and writers. If an artist is a writer they will make money, and that's exactly who's making money from Spotify, not the artists.
You can make a point that artists do put themselves in this position. They are the ones that sign the record contract. Taylor Swift is just one of a very select few that actually control their own music.
I can see how you think labels and publishers are the bad guys. They are making money at the expensive of the artists they sign, but at the same time, the artists make a ton of money as well indirectly. The labels put the music out there on sites such as iTunes, Spotify, etc. Doing so gives artists huge exposure, which in turn, translates to ticket sales for concerts. For example, just say you discover a new artist on Spotify. If you see that artist is coming to your area, you are more inclined to attend their show. Artists make their money from shows. They may not be making much from Spotify, but in reality, they do get tons of exposure which translates to concert ticket sales.
Children want everything for free because understanding that nothing worth having is never free for long is a complex adult concept.
I only pay 6 dollars a month for spotify here in Uruguay.
Buying records at the record store costs about 11 dollars each. That means that for half the price of one album I have virtually every album I would want to listen to all the time. And we don't have an iTunes Store, pandora, iTunes Radio or any other service like those. Spotify is king here.
Isn't the main difference with Spotify's ad-supported streaming tier and terrestrial radio that users of Spotify's can create their own playlist? Or listen to a particular album/artist on shuffle? So they can essentially listen to the songs they want, when they want, so long as they listen to a few ads here and there. Terrestrial radio is completely random.
Isn't the main difference with Spotify's ad-supported streaming tier and terrestrial radio that users of Spotify's can create their own playlist? Or listen to a particular album/artist on shuffle? So they can essentially listen to the songs they want, when they want, so long as they listen to a few ads here and there. Terrestrial radio is completely random.
yes. good point. Otherwise it's the same model. However, many radio stations can be streamed and songs repeated, and skipped over. Though the listener isn't selecting the playlist as they do in Spotify. However, in the absence of signal neither can be accessed, making good old downloads, king. Nevertheless, everything is moving toward customizable streaming, so the industry needs to address, as it supplants traditional downloads. But Google and YouTube will have to be dealt with as well since taking the ability to listen to select tracks in Spotify will just push people towards YouTube. In the end, most people I know use Spotify to select favorites they run in a playlist that plays in the background like radio, which is not that much different than tuning into a local station that predominately plays music you like. Ad revenue is still generated for the broadcasts, it just limits the ability of the record labels to promote new artists via passive listening habits, forcing them to develop new methods.
Artists get hosed because they first do not treat their band/music like a business and incorporate themselves, hire tax accountants, legal counsel on retainer and build any truly artist driven labels.
The ``we just wanted to make music'' is a load of shit.
Ask Queen, RUSH, Pink Floyd, etc., about it.
They all control end-to-end their creative works.
If your music is your livelihood then start treating it like it is your own business.
This is not radio buddy, it's music on demand with some ads. Better revise your BS line.
One of my first jobs was as a DJ. At our station both Friday evenings and Saturday mornings (my shift) were essentially "on-demand" with caller requests being 100% of the playlist, interspersed with ads of course.
One of my first jobs was as a DJ. At our station both Friday evenings and Saturday mornings (my shift) were essentially "on-demand" with caller requests being 100% of the playlist, interspersed with ads of course.
While that can be a big component of local radio, especially smaller station, let's get real -- the business of radio is almost entirely driven by lobbyists from the record labels, and music publishers.
But, to the extent that Spotify and other services can be construed as music on demand, most people I know don't use it that way. Most will go to YouTube to look up a specific song they want. I'd say 99% of the people I know listen to playlists on Spotify, most of which were created by suggestions from Spotify, in addition to selecting favorites from those preexisting playlists created by others, which created new playlists which in turn suggest other new content. It's not really all that different from radio in that the listener is being exposed to new artists by listening to the music they love - far better proposition than listening to an oldies station for the record labels (and the most likely to program user requests). It's also far easier to look up an artist that may have limited rotation on a radio station (if any) to gain exposure and add them to your own rotation.
There are pros and cons to streaming "on demand", but they are mostly positives for the artists over the carefully curated rotations of radio stations where the artists are equally as cut out of the profits.
Appealing to concern for the poor suffering artists is the 'but think of the children' of music technology discussions. Artists are ripped off by the publishers and vested music industry, not by consumers and players like Spotify.
I saw a BBC news item recently:
You don't have to look far to see why artists are arguably not getting a fair share of the pie. It's usually said that artists make very little from sales of their music and actually make the bulk of their income from live performances.
Spotify isn't the artist's enemy.
It's a supply and demand issue. There is a massive oversupply of music and musicians, therefore profits remain thin at the individual artist level. A label will expect to lose money on most of their acts. All artists are a gamble for them, which is why a few headliners are essential for them to stay in business. Music is art and art is subjective and being continually served up to a public with ever changing tastes and interests.
It's a supply and demand issue. There is a massive oversupply of music and musicians, therefore profits remain thin at the individual artist level. A label will expect to lose money on most of their acts. All artists are a gamble for them, which is why a few headliners are essential for them to stay in business. Music is art and art is subjective and being continually served up to a public with ever changing tastes and interests.
It's an oversaturation of young artists who really should do it as a hobby and not as a career. The talent drop in Rock for the past 15 years is alarming.
yes. good point. Otherwise it's the same model. However, many radio stations can be streamed and songs repeated, and skipped over. Though the listener isn't selecting the playlist as they do in Spotify. However, in the absence of signal neither can be accessed, making good old downloads, king. Nevertheless, everything is moving toward customizable streaming, so the industry needs to address, as it supplants traditional downloads. But Google and YouTube will have to be dealt with as well since taking the ability to listen to select tracks in Spotify will just push people towards YouTube. In the end, most people I know use Spotify to select favorites they run in a playlist that plays in the background like radio, which is not that much different than tuning into a local station that predominately plays music you like. Ad revenue is still generated for the broadcasts, it just limits the ability of the record labels to promote new artists via passive listening habits, forcing them to develop new methods.
With Spotify you can also download your music for offline listening so it's nothing like iTunes or other radio streaming services. I have over 200 complete albums downloaded to a 128GB SD Card in my BB Passport. Yes, there are also radio type stations on Spotify but I've never actually known anyone to use them. Most people add the complete individual song or album to a custom playlist and for those who pay for the service can also download the songs locally. Have you ever actually used Spotify, it's fantastic, even though I pay for the service as I like the higher quality music, no ads and being able to download, I really hope Apple is unsuccessful in preasuring the music companies. The more I read about this the more I'm disgusted with how these mega corps. are able to get pretty much anything they want. Spotify might be a competition for us, lets go after the thing that makes them appealing. All this is going to do is increase piracy as Spotify gave those who couldn't afford a monthly service an outlet without habing to turn to torrent sites.
I personally have no interest in Beats simply because I've already spent to much time in finding and creating playlists in Spotify, I also prefer their interface.
With Spotify you can also download your music for offline listening so it's nothing like iTunes or other radio streaming services. I have over 200 complete albums downloaded to a 128GB SD Card in my BB Passport. Yes, there are also radio type stations on Spotify but I've never actually known anyone to use them. Most people add the complete individual song or album to a custom playlist and for those who pay for the service can also download the songs locally. Have you ever actually used Spotify, it's fantastic, even though I pay for the service as I like the higher quality music, no ads and being able to download, I really hope Apple is unsuccessful in preasuring the music companies.
You PAY for Spotify, which most people don't, including me. That's exactly what Apple is asking for, for Spotify's customers to pay for the service so than can compete on an even playing field. If you pay for something and are provided a service that a provider can offer via deals leveraged with the record labels and publishers, Apple can't really take issue with it.
Apple could offer the exact same thing, if they wanted to go the ad based route. Not sure why they are so resistant to the idea when it's the universal model for most terrestrial broadcasting. It may or may not improve the quality of services to customers, and there's no guarantee that anybody but the record labels and publishers will profit. Most artists will be left right where they are now. But service providers certainly will profit where they aren't now. I'm not sure Apple could offer ad free streaming for free without drawing an un-fair competition lawsuit, and the stockholders would also not likely be happy with Apple running a business at a loss.
You PAY for Spotify, which most people don't, including me. That's exactly what Apple is asking for, for Spotify's customers to pay for the service so than can compete on an even playing field. If you pay for something and are provided a service that a provider can offer via deals leveraged with the record labels and publishers, Apple can't really take issue with it.
Apple could offer the exact same thing, if they wanted to go the ad based route. Not sure why they are so resistant to the idea when it's the universal model for most terrestrial broadcasting. It may or may not improve the quality of services to customers, and there's no guarantee that anybody but the record labels and publishers will profit. Most artists will be left right where they are now. But service providers certainly will profit where they aren't now. I'm not sure Apple could offer ad free streaming for free without drawing an un-fair competition lawsuit, and the stockholders would also not likely be happy with Apple running a business at a loss.
Than their basically saying If their not doing it than no one else should either. Would Apple still complain to the music industry head’s if they also decided to provide a similar service, no way. This has nothing to do with making the playing field even or playing fair, but destroying their competition in this market, that's it. I know people here will just turn a blind eye because it’s Apple or even defend this practice but it’s wrong. Apple would go after everyone and their mothers if this situation was reversed and you know that.
It's a supply and demand issue. There is a massive oversupply of music and musicians, therefore profits remain thin at the individual artist level. A label will expect to lose money on most of their acts. All artists are a gamble for them, which is why a few headliners are essential for them to stay in business. Music is art and art is subjective and being continually served up to a public with ever changing tastes and interests.
I think the decline in music is actually due to a decline in quality. These days everything except dance music is exclusively vocals driven. There seems to have been a decline in musical talent and the ability to write actual music. The vocalist has been raised on high as a cult personality and is supported by formulaic drivel in terms of the music underlying the meaningless songs they sing. When was the last time the charts included an instrumental hit?
TV may be partially to blame for turning 'music' into more of a visuals driven performance than an auditory one.
I think the decline in music is actually due to a decline in quality. These days everything except dance music is exclusively vocals driven. There seems to have been a decline in musical talent and the ability to write actual music. The vocalist has been raised on high as a cult personality and is supported by formulaic drivel in terms of the music underlying the meaningless songs they sing. When was the last time the charts included an instrumental hit?
TV may be partially to blame for turning 'music' into more of a visuals driven performance than an auditory one.
People are just less prepared to pay for pap Damn these kids and their himp humph music.
These damn kids and their hipaty humpaty whatcha-mccall-it music, hey, get off my damn lawn, Georgina turn on the sprinklers, quick.
Comments
How is it stupid!? This is exactly how radio has always worked. Free music or talk and all being paid for by ad's. Why would it be any different because it's streaming?
giving away free streaming music was stupid in the first place.
its a business model that won't lead to long term success no matter how many ads you dump in the users face.
And by "in the first place," I presume you mean 1921? I know, that's not really "long term success" -- it hasn't even been a century yet!
Artists didn't put themselves into this position, at least not directly. Case in point -- one of the biggest pop stars in the business, Taylor Swift, cannot be found on Spotify, because she controls her music.
Labels and publishers are the real bad guys here, for many more reasons than pimping out their artists for pennies to Spotify.
You can make a point that artists do put themselves in this position. They are the ones that sign the record contract. Taylor Swift is just one of a very select few that actually control their own music.
I can see how you think labels and publishers are the bad guys. They are making money at the expensive of the artists they sign, but at the same time, the artists make a ton of money as well indirectly. The labels put the music out there on sites such as iTunes, Spotify, etc. Doing so gives artists huge exposure, which in turn, translates to ticket sales for concerts. For example, just say you discover a new artist on Spotify. If you see that artist is coming to your area, you are more inclined to attend their show. Artists make their money from shows. They may not be making much from Spotify, but in reality, they do get tons of exposure which translates to concert ticket sales.
How is it stupid!? This is exactly how radio has always worked. Free music or talk and all being paid for by ad's. Why would it be any different because it's streaming?
Quite so. Radio doesn't make any money for artists either. Performance royalties are paid by broadcasters, which benefit the publishers and writers. If an artist is a writer they will make money, and that's exactly who's making money from Spotify, not the artists.
Children want everything for free because understanding that nothing worth having is never free for long is a complex adult concept.
Buying records at the record store costs about 11 dollars each. That means that for half the price of one album I have virtually every album I would want to listen to all the time. And we don't have an iTunes Store, pandora, iTunes Radio or any other service like those.
Spotify is king here.
Isn't the main difference with Spotify's ad-supported streaming tier and terrestrial radio that users of Spotify's can create their own playlist? Or listen to a particular album/artist on shuffle? So they can essentially listen to the songs they want, when they want, so long as they listen to a few ads here and there. Terrestrial radio is completely random.
yes. good point. Otherwise it's the same model. However, many radio stations can be streamed and songs repeated, and skipped over. Though the listener isn't selecting the playlist as they do in Spotify. However, in the absence of signal neither can be accessed, making good old downloads, king. Nevertheless, everything is moving toward customizable streaming, so the industry needs to address, as it supplants traditional downloads. But Google and YouTube will have to be dealt with as well since taking the ability to listen to select tracks in Spotify will just push people towards YouTube. In the end, most people I know use Spotify to select favorites they run in a playlist that plays in the background like radio, which is not that much different than tuning into a local station that predominately plays music you like. Ad revenue is still generated for the broadcasts, it just limits the ability of the record labels to promote new artists via passive listening habits, forcing them to develop new methods.
The ``we just wanted to make music'' is a load of shit.
Ask Queen, RUSH, Pink Floyd, etc., about it.
They all control end-to-end their creative works.
If your music is your livelihood then start treating it like it is your own business.
And by "in the first place," I presume you mean 1921? I know, that's not really "long term success" -- it hasn't even been a century yet!
This is not radio buddy, it's music on demand with some ads. Better revise your BS line.
One of my first jobs was as a DJ. At our station both Friday evenings and Saturday mornings (my shift) were essentially "on-demand" with caller requests being 100% of the playlist, interspersed with ads of course.
While that can be a big component of local radio, especially smaller station, let's get real -- the business of radio is almost entirely driven by lobbyists from the record labels, and music publishers.
But, to the extent that Spotify and other services can be construed as music on demand, most people I know don't use it that way. Most will go to YouTube to look up a specific song they want. I'd say 99% of the people I know listen to playlists on Spotify, most of which were created by suggestions from Spotify, in addition to selecting favorites from those preexisting playlists created by others, which created new playlists which in turn suggest other new content. It's not really all that different from radio in that the listener is being exposed to new artists by listening to the music they love - far better proposition than listening to an oldies station for the record labels (and the most likely to program user requests). It's also far easier to look up an artist that may have limited rotation on a radio station (if any) to gain exposure and add them to your own rotation.
There are pros and cons to streaming "on demand", but they are mostly positives for the artists over the carefully curated rotations of radio stations where the artists are equally as cut out of the profits.
It's a supply and demand issue. There is a massive oversupply of music and musicians, therefore profits remain thin at the individual artist level. A label will expect to lose money on most of their acts. All artists are a gamble for them, which is why a few headliners are essential for them to stay in business. Music is art and art is subjective and being continually served up to a public with ever changing tastes and interests.
It's an oversaturation of young artists who really should do it as a hobby and not as a career. The talent drop in Rock for the past 15 years is alarming.
yes. good point. Otherwise it's the same model. However, many radio stations can be streamed and songs repeated, and skipped over. Though the listener isn't selecting the playlist as they do in Spotify. However, in the absence of signal neither can be accessed, making good old downloads, king. Nevertheless, everything is moving toward customizable streaming, so the industry needs to address, as it supplants traditional downloads. But Google and YouTube will have to be dealt with as well since taking the ability to listen to select tracks in Spotify will just push people towards YouTube. In the end, most people I know use Spotify to select favorites they run in a playlist that plays in the background like radio, which is not that much different than tuning into a local station that predominately plays music you like. Ad revenue is still generated for the broadcasts, it just limits the ability of the record labels to promote new artists via passive listening habits, forcing them to develop new methods.
With Spotify you can also download your music for offline listening so it's nothing like iTunes or other radio streaming services. I have over 200 complete albums downloaded to a 128GB SD Card in my BB Passport. Yes, there are also radio type stations on Spotify but I've never actually known anyone to use them. Most people add the complete individual song or album to a custom playlist and for those who pay for the service can also download the songs locally. Have you ever actually used Spotify, it's fantastic, even though I pay for the service as I like the higher quality music, no ads and being able to download, I really hope Apple is unsuccessful in preasuring the music companies. The more I read about this the more I'm disgusted with how these mega corps. are able to get pretty much anything they want. Spotify might be a competition for us, lets go after the thing that makes them appealing. All this is going to do is increase piracy as Spotify gave those who couldn't afford a monthly service an outlet without habing to turn to torrent sites.I personally have no interest in Beats simply because I've already spent to much time in finding and creating playlists in Spotify, I also prefer their interface.
With Spotify you can also download your music for offline listening so it's nothing like iTunes or other radio streaming services. I have over 200 complete albums downloaded to a 128GB SD Card in my BB Passport. Yes, there are also radio type stations on Spotify but I've never actually known anyone to use them. Most people add the complete individual song or album to a custom playlist and for those who pay for the service can also download the songs locally. Have you ever actually used Spotify, it's fantastic, even though I pay for the service as I like the higher quality music, no ads and being able to download, I really hope Apple is unsuccessful in preasuring the music companies.
You PAY for Spotify, which most people don't, including me. That's exactly what Apple is asking for, for Spotify's customers to pay for the service so than can compete on an even playing field. If you pay for something and are provided a service that a provider can offer via deals leveraged with the record labels and publishers, Apple can't really take issue with it.
Apple could offer the exact same thing, if they wanted to go the ad based route. Not sure why they are so resistant to the idea when it's the universal model for most terrestrial broadcasting. It may or may not improve the quality of services to customers, and there's no guarantee that anybody but the record labels and publishers will profit. Most artists will be left right where they are now. But service providers certainly will profit where they aren't now. I'm not sure Apple could offer ad free streaming for free without drawing an un-fair competition lawsuit, and the stockholders would also not likely be happy with Apple running a business at a loss.
You PAY for Spotify, which most people don't, including me. That's exactly what Apple is asking for, for Spotify's customers to pay for the service so than can compete on an even playing field. If you pay for something and are provided a service that a provider can offer via deals leveraged with the record labels and publishers, Apple can't really take issue with it.
Apple could offer the exact same thing, if they wanted to go the ad based route. Not sure why they are so resistant to the idea when it's the universal model for most terrestrial broadcasting. It may or may not improve the quality of services to customers, and there's no guarantee that anybody but the record labels and publishers will profit. Most artists will be left right where they are now. But service providers certainly will profit where they aren't now. I'm not sure Apple could offer ad free streaming for free without drawing an un-fair competition lawsuit, and the stockholders would also not likely be happy with Apple running a business at a loss.
Than their basically saying If their not doing it than no one else should either. Would Apple still complain to the music industry head’s if they also decided to provide a similar service, no way. This has nothing to do with making the playing field even or playing fair, but destroying their competition in this market, that's it. I know people here will just turn a blind eye because it’s Apple or even defend this practice but it’s wrong. Apple would go after everyone and their mothers if this situation was reversed and you know that.
It's a supply and demand issue. There is a massive oversupply of music and musicians, therefore profits remain thin at the individual artist level. A label will expect to lose money on most of their acts. All artists are a gamble for them, which is why a few headliners are essential for them to stay in business. Music is art and art is subjective and being continually served up to a public with ever changing tastes and interests.
I think the decline in music is actually due to a decline in quality. These days everything except dance music is exclusively vocals driven. There seems to have been a decline in musical talent and the ability to write actual music. The vocalist has been raised on high as a cult personality and is supported by formulaic drivel in terms of the music underlying the meaningless songs they sing. When was the last time the charts included an instrumental hit?
TV may be partially to blame for turning 'music' into more of a visuals driven performance than an auditory one.
People are just less prepared to pay for pap.
These damn kids and their hipaty humpaty whatcha-mccall-it music, hey, get off my damn lawn, Georgina turn on the sprinklers, quick.