What's the difference between this and Pandora and Last.fm? Playlist is that the only difference? Do you need a constant network connection? I don't get all the hub-bub over Spotify? Especially if you need a constant network connection and you never "own" the music. I don't get it. I guess as a radio type service its good, but doesnt seem like competition to iTunes. Pandora was never competition or a threat to ITunes. I just don't get it or how this involves Apple?
Oh and what happens if you cancel your subscription, all that music you had goes bye, bye!
No, it doesn't. You can still listen to the music via the free service.
Whether Spotify is cheaper than iTunes depends on your music habits.
Personally, I use Spotify in addition to buying CDs. Spotify is great for discovering new artists and sharing playlists with friends. A lot of European music festivals post a Spotify playlist in advance so that people can hear the bands playing before the festival begins. I've been to see quite a few bands who I've discovered via Spotify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman
What's the difference between this and Pandora and Last.fm? Playlist is that the only difference? Do you need a constant network connection?
No, you don't need a constant connection. You can mark playlists for offline listening - both on the desktop and mobile client. On the desktop, it keeps a local cache of all songs that have been played (up to a user-defined limit) to reduce network bandwidth.
One of the great things about Spotify is that it'll integrate your existing music collection into it. It's possible to create a playlist that includes both Spotify tracks and songs from your iTunes collection. It's great for parties.
A recording contract is a holy grail to most emerging musicians. Most cities have hundreds or thousands of musicians with local followings who have difficulty expanding their fan bases and see a contract as a rocket to greater distribution and being known.
And nearly none of them have effective agents or the services of a sharp lawyer. So they fall over themselves to sign on the dotted line at the first offer that comes their way.
Nothing new about this, btw. Many creatives in many fields - including music but not at all limited to it - have signed away many valuable rights and potential income sources (which accrue to those who contract with them) in order to get a "break-through."
For example, it took the creators of Superman (among many other comic writers/artists) many decades to get any rights to their creations. They gave up ALL rights under "work for hire" contracts. Further afield, many of boxing's most famous fighters gave a greater percentage of their pay to their managers than they got themselves. Athletes in other sports had to fight long and hard to gain any free agency rights.
The situation has improved for many content creators (performers, artists, athletes), but the distributors of content still maintain a high degree of leverage over them in all kinds of situations.
For another example, creators of Apple iDevice apps have two choices - take the 70-30 split Apple offers (which I'm not characterizing as fair or unfair here - just as an example of the take-it-or-leave-it nature that's always been the way for content sellers), along with following every guideline Apple lays down, while allowing Apple to the sole determiner of when or if that's happened. Or not be able to sell on the single authorized outlet for those apps.
And that - with a few exceptions of those who have gone viral enough to attract multiple offers and those who also have some sophistication about the business - is how some young, aspiring rock 'n rollers end up giving away much of what many or most would think they actually deserve.
Comments
Oh and what happens if you cancel your subscription, all that music you had goes bye, bye!
No, it doesn't. You can still listen to the music via the free service.
Whether Spotify is cheaper than iTunes depends on your music habits.
Personally, I use Spotify in addition to buying CDs. Spotify is great for discovering new artists and sharing playlists with friends. A lot of European music festivals post a Spotify playlist in advance so that people can hear the bands playing before the festival begins. I've been to see quite a few bands who I've discovered via Spotify.
What's the difference between this and Pandora and Last.fm? Playlist is that the only difference? Do you need a constant network connection?
No, you don't need a constant connection. You can mark playlists for offline listening - both on the desktop and mobile client. On the desktop, it keeps a local cache of all songs that have been played (up to a user-defined limit) to reduce network bandwidth.
One of the great things about Spotify is that it'll integrate your existing music collection into it. It's possible to create a playlist that includes both Spotify tracks and songs from your iTunes collection. It's great for parties.
I don't get all the hub-bub over Spotify?
Try it and find out.
Why do musicians sign contracts that allow that?
A recording contract is a holy grail to most emerging musicians. Most cities have hundreds or thousands of musicians with local followings who have difficulty expanding their fan bases and see a contract as a rocket to greater distribution and being known.
And nearly none of them have effective agents or the services of a sharp lawyer. So they fall over themselves to sign on the dotted line at the first offer that comes their way.
Nothing new about this, btw. Many creatives in many fields - including music but not at all limited to it - have signed away many valuable rights and potential income sources (which accrue to those who contract with them) in order to get a "break-through."
For example, it took the creators of Superman (among many other comic writers/artists) many decades to get any rights to their creations. They gave up ALL rights under "work for hire" contracts. Further afield, many of boxing's most famous fighters gave a greater percentage of their pay to their managers than they got themselves. Athletes in other sports had to fight long and hard to gain any free agency rights.
The situation has improved for many content creators (performers, artists, athletes), but the distributors of content still maintain a high degree of leverage over them in all kinds of situations.
For another example, creators of Apple iDevice apps have two choices - take the 70-30 split Apple offers (which I'm not characterizing as fair or unfair here - just as an example of the take-it-or-leave-it nature that's always been the way for content sellers), along with following every guideline Apple lays down, while allowing Apple to the sole determiner of when or if that's happened. Or not be able to sell on the single authorized outlet for those apps.
And that - with a few exceptions of those who have gone viral enough to attract multiple offers and those who also have some sophistication about the business - is how some young, aspiring rock 'n rollers end up giving away much of what many or most would think they actually deserve.
You forgot one group: those who realize this is a scam by the record labels to take your money without paying royalties to the musicians you are listening to.
From the chart:
iTunes/Amazon MP3: for every dollar the artist earns the record label earns $5.89
Spotify: for every dollar the artist earns the record label earns $5.51
Where's the scam?
From the chart:
iTunes/Amazon MP3: for every dollar the artist earns the record label earns $5.89
Spotify: for every dollar the artist earns the record label earns $5.51
Where's the scam?
Is that for ALL artists, or just those with the right contracts?
From what I've read, the little guys get crapped on.