The next music revolution - SPOTIFY
http://www.spotify.com/en/products/overview/
This seriously kicks iTunes (for music) in the balls and is so easy and great and everything is FREE, it makes torrenting look stupid and cumbersome. Apparently its coming to iPhone as well.
Go get it now - may not work in your country yet though.
...and the fluid interface while obviously influenced by iTunes, is so fluid and snappy even in early beta, its everything you wished iTunes could be, shame on Apple.
And it comes from Europe...
This seriously kicks iTunes (for music) in the balls and is so easy and great and everything is FREE, it makes torrenting look stupid and cumbersome. Apparently its coming to iPhone as well.
Go get it now - may not work in your country yet though.
...and the fluid interface while obviously influenced by iTunes, is so fluid and snappy even in early beta, its everything you wished iTunes could be, shame on Apple.
And it comes from Europe...
Comments
http://www.spotify.com/en/products/overview/
This seriously kicks iTunes (for music) in the balls and is so easy and great and everything is FREE, it makes torrenting look stupid and cumbersome. Apparently its coming to iPhone as well.
Go get it now - may not work in your country yet though.
...and the fluid interface while obviously influenced by iTunes, is so fluid and snappy even in early beta, its everything you wished iTunes could be, shame on Apple.
And it comes from Europe...
So... if everything is free, how do the artists who worked long hours to make this music, get duly paid for their labors? Or.. is this yet another variety of peer-to-peer theft?
So... if everything is free, how do the artists who worked long hours to make this music, get duly paid for their labors? Or.. is this yet another variety of peer-to-peer theft?
Ditto. I'd like to know that as well.
So... if everything is free, how do the artists who worked long hours to make this music, get duly paid for their labors? Or.. is this yet another variety of peer-to-peer theft?
In a way it is but they stream the tracks just like a radio station would except there's only music and you choose what you listen to.
You can capture tracks from it but only in real-time and against the terms of service. You couldn't for example download 50 tracks at once.
It doesn't have the same selection as itunes yet but even at the stage it's at now, it looks like a pretty useful app as you can listen to entire songs instantly.
So... if everything is free, how do the artists who worked long hours to make this music, get duly paid for their labors? Or.. is this yet another variety of peer-to-peer theft?
Ditto. I'd like to know that as well.
Its a new venture, and as such I cant believe it is making money at the moment. I have had a look at its business model, and it claims it will make money through advertising and subscription.
The free client has ads, and to be fair, theyre about as subtle and non-intrusive as you can reasonably expect to get - a 30 second pitch for something once or twice through an album or a couple of inline banners. They have the sense to wait until a track has finished before they play an ad.
If you don't like that, you can pay a fairly small monthly sub to remove all the ads.
The service is legal and supported by the four big majors, and some indie labels - so they must have potential at least in the eyes of the majors.
It works on P2P, so the client caches music on your computer for the others in the network - I guess this is what makes it teh-snappy - and the interface is coming along nicely - already as good as itunes for ease of use - but 10 times snappier.
As for whether the artist gets paid reasonably. Artists NEVER got paid reasonably and have been being shafted by the industry since its inception. I doubt this will change anything, but for the end user, if you are prepared to listen to minor adverts (or pay) and accept that its just a stream you cant download - it is by far, the most convienient and user friendly music service that exists in the world today even in this current early beta state.
Of course, the alternative that is killing the industry is illegal torrents and the RI Ass A suing your granny for a million because theres some 50 cent tracks on her second hand HD
So for an industry that has to compete with illegal - this is a win for them and for consumers.
http://www.spotify.com/en/about/jobs...hone-platform/
In a way it is but they stream the tracks just like a radio station would except there's only music and you choose what you listen to.
You can capture tracks from it but only in real-time and against the terms of service. You couldn't for example download 50 tracks at once.
It doesn't have the same selection as itunes yet but even at the stage it's at now, it looks like a pretty useful app as you can listen to entire songs instantly.
Thats all very *nice*, but its not addressing the question. If you're an artist and your song gets played on Spotify (or a listener downloads it) how does the writer and/or performer get remunerated for this purchase/play of their property? Spotify are obviously making money from the venture, so how does the artist's portion of the incoming revenue stream get redistributed back to the artists? What is the legal/contractual status between Spotify and the artists whose music is being played and downloaded?
What else makes it special?
Playing albums a second time, does not draw any data from the net, so the stream is obviously saved. I went looking for it, and its all in a proprietry format in hidden folders. Im not interested in ripping the stream. I intend to use it as it was intended. You still have to be connected to the net though for the adverts, and if you disconnect, the music will stop playing at the end of the current track.
Most of the supporting ads are very short, 10-20 seconds mostly, and if you are browsing extensively through the catalogue, you probably wont hear one anyway. Its when you listen to an album outright, the ad pops up after aprox 4 songs.
So far most of the ads, are for other artists, i've had ads for the "ting tings" and "take that!" - so not too offensive depending on your POV.
Thats all very *nice*, but its not addressing the question. If you're an artist and your song gets played on Spotify (or a listener downloads it) how does the writer and/or performer get remunerated for this purchase/play of their property? Spotify are obviously making money from the venture, so how does the artist's portion of the incoming revenue stream get redistributed back to the artists? What is the legal/contractual status between Spotify and the artists whose music is being played and downloaded?
What is your point?
This legal service has been described as so obviously easy it makes illegal torrenting difficult and obsolete. For a long time now, artists have only been able to make any proper money through touring - Artists might as well distribute their music as loss leaders to get people to go to their live shows.
As for CD's DVD's - theyre on their way out, its obvious. You got to change and adapt to the new world. Giving away the music is what its about. CD's or downloads are just adverts in themselves for the live show. You want as many people to hear the advert as possible.
However, I can't see how such a service, which requires me to be online, "kicks iTunes in the balls", but maybe that's because I don't see my tech preferences as being some kind alpha male domination thing.
Frankly I think music, of all art forms, is the one that ought not be imprisoned for ransom. It used to be a day where people played music for enjoyment and then the business pimps invaded and convinced generations that music was some commodity to wrap up in cellophane and sell. Thus the soul left the music only to be replaced by avarice.
What is your point?
This legal service has been described as so obviously easy it makes illegal torrenting difficult and obsolete. For a long time now, artists have only been able to make any proper money through touring - Artists might as well distribute their music as loss leaders to get people to go to their live shows.
As for CD's DVD's - theyre on their way out, its obvious. You got to change and adapt to the new world. Giving away the music is what its about. CD's or downloads are just adverts in themselves for the live show. You want as many people to hear the advert as possible.
I agree, in that artists have to adopt to "the new model". However, that model includes selling merchandise at shows, a primary source of income for a touring band these days, and the media upon which the music and videos are represented, are CDs and DVDs, in other words, hard copy. Fans like having the physical hard copy, complete with artwork etc. So, as long as music continues to be played at live venues, there will be a demand for a hard copy, whether it be vinyl, tape, digital media, whatever.
It is always a good strategy for artists to disseminate their music. Whether they give it away, or sell it, or whatever, should be the decision of the artist. What is not OK, is for 3rd parties to distribute freely, or sell music without the permission of the copyright holder. Unfortunately, such is common practice within the entertainment industry, and I hope that "Spotify" doesn't conform to that common practice, just because they can, with impunity.
I take it you don't support shoplifting either?
I agree, in that artists have to adopt to "the new model". However, that model includes selling merchandise at shows, a primary source of income for a touring band these days, and the media upon which the music and videos are represented, are CDs and DVDs, in other words, hard copy. Fans like having the physical hard copy, complete with artwork etc. So, as long as music continues to be played at live venues, there will be a demand for a hard copy, whether it be vinyl, tape, digital media, whatever.
It is always a good strategy for artists to disseminate their music. Whether they give it away, or sell it, or whatever, should be the decision of the artist. What is not OK, is for 3rd parties to distribute freely, or sell music without the permission of the copyright holder. Unfortunately, such is common practice within the entertainment industry, and I hope that "Spotify" doesn't conform to that common practice, just because they can, with impunity.
I take it you don't support shoplifting either?
I never used to support shoplifting, but I am beginning to change my mind. Another story....
But anyway, as far as artists go, if they dont like their deal in life, they are more than free to stop doing what they are doing, ie stop taking the heroin, stop shagging the groupies and stop receiving royalties for their produce years after doing any real work, stop receiving free gear from sponsors, stop being invited to lavish parties....
Im sure there will not be a queue of them lining up to pack eggs into boxes anytime soon, which is what most of them would be doing if they hadn't got extremely lucky.
Im not against the artists, ahem performers, they should be paid fairly for what they do. In most cases, they are merely photogenic talentless puppets for people like me. Even the ones who we think have some credibility, they're just industry hacks in most part.
I never used to support shoplifting, but I am beginning to change my mind. Another story....
But anyway, as far as artists go, if they dont like their deal in life, they are more than free to stop doing what they are doing, ie stop taking the heroin, stop shagging the groupies and stop receiving royalties for their produce years after doing any real work, stop receiving free gear from sponsors, stop being invited to lavish parties....
Im sure there will not be a queue of them lining up to pack eggs into boxes anytime soon, which is what most of them would be doing if they hadn't got extremely lucky.[/quote]
The kind of lifestyles you refer to apply to a *tiny* percentage of artists who are owned and promoted by big corporate, whose often infantile behaviors are given overkill media exposure... its convenient easy-reading for the masses... and bad publicity, is always good publicity (within reason of course). The *huge* majority of people who do music, either fulltime, semi-pro or purely for the love of it are scratching around fighting for air, in an industry where an overwhelming proportion of the available oxygen is being consumed by an elite few.
Im not against the artists, ahem performers, they should be paid fairly for what they do. In most cases, they are merely photogenic talentless puppets for people like me. Even the ones who we think have some credibility, they're just industry hacks in most part.
That's a little closer... In the music industry, "photogenic talentless puppets" (read "whores") stand a far greater chance of becoming household names than, say, musical geniuses; the former vastly outnumbers the latter. Talent and "craftsmanship" are trumped every time by other factors which have nothing to do with writing or performing music. I wonder, if in, say, the last 15-20 years, there has been anyone who can be described as a "musical genius" who has become famous enough to warrant ongoing media attention?
Im not reallyttalking about the people scratching around to make genuine music - Im talking about the mediocre shit that has been in the top 100 for the last....well since 95. -If those performance monkeys dont like their 'deal', they should step aside, and let some other jumped up talentless "tits and ass" have their 15 minutes of fame.
Really, as much as the music labels and industry completely suck - and boy dont they really suck - the clowns they are 'manipulating and ripping off' should be more than grateful for not having to shovel fries for a living.