 Music

[Herr Tubthumper]

I use Spotify but only as a back up to listen to music I already own. I'll have to see what Apple offers above this, and artist royalties will play a part I guess.

 

[Ali_rrr]

I think this is crucial, I'm sure they'll do well off of the people who just want chart music etc because ZOMFG its Apple (although will people be willing to migrate from Spotify or w/e where they've spent years building up their playlists?) but if you're of a more discerning taste and want to use it to browse and discover music both new and old that doesn't exist within the mainstream, how useful can yet another service really be?

I've built 2000 songs for my starred playlist over 5 years, there is no way I'm swapping to Apple for that reason.

 

[clippedgull]

Main income is touring (or t-shirts if it's a metal band), because they get **** all from platforms like Spotify.

As I was saying.

 

[clippedgull]

Maybe if your Muse or Radiohead. Isn't that what people say to make themselves feel better, despite the fact they know the artist is being ripped off?

People as in the artists? Or the consumers who have been ripped off for decades?

If their music is popular enough they will make money. It's all in mass consumer taste.

 

[Bozza]

I've built 2000 songs for my starred playlist over 5 years, there is no way I'm swapping to Apple for that reason.

I swapped from Spotify to Deezer and used a simple utility to copy all my playlists from one service to the other.

I don't think "playlist lock-in" is likely to be a consideration with these services. It is in their interests to make that part easy and not a barrier.

 

[Igzilla]

I won't touch anything Apple with a bargepole. Never liked the whole closed source, proprietary hardware ethos, plus their Quicktime software always invaded my pc like a virus when I had it installed. I will steer well clear of this.

 

[spring hall convert]

People as in the artists? Or the consumers who have been ripped off for decades?

If their music is popular enough they will make money. It's all in mass consumer taste.

http://www.nme.com/news/portishead/84559 - is that fair? If it's hurting Portishead, then what is it doing to up and coming talent, outside of the major label sponsored lowest common denominator guff.

 

[halbpro]

The lack of a free tier might hurt them. And unless iTunes will work a LOT better on Windows I'm not interested even slightly. Spotify does what I need.

 

[Ali_rrr]

I swapped from Spotify to Deezer and used a simple utility to copy all my playlists from one service to the other.

I don't think "playlist lock-in" is likely to be a consideration with these services. It is in their interests to make that part easy and not a barrier.

Fair enough, then I guess it depends on how many of the songs Apple will have the license for. The supposed thing that Apple may be able win over Spotify with is streaming over The Beatles.

 

[clippedgull]

http://www.nme.com/news/portishead/84559 - is that fair? If it's hurting Portishead, then what is it doing to up and coming talent, outside of the major label sponsored lowest common denominator guff.

Did I say it was? I don't know. But I do pay for Spotify. After splurging hundreds during 80's and 90's!

 

[spring hall convert]

Did I say it was? I don't know. But I do pay for Spotify. After splurging hundreds during 80's and 90's!

Agreed that labels took the piss pre internet. I would say that model was the worst of both worlds - artists still got ****ed (though nowhere near as hard) and the consumer was royally ****ed. The model now is that the consumer is being less ****ed but at the expense of the artist. The guys at the top are still raking it in, the internet was supposed to democratise music and it's ending up doing the reverse.

My issue is that streaming services have taken something that was inherently wrong (illegal downloading) and given it a veneer of respectability whilst ****ing the artist and making huge sums of money for faceless corparations. Do Apple really need to make MORE money? The best way to support music is to buy music and ifrom a source as close to the artist as possible. Having a £10 Spotify sub may ease consciences but most artists would be better off if you illegally downloaded and bought a random sample of 10%.

It's a very tricky area but I would suggest that the remuneration issues in music currently aren't going to be resolved by lining the pockets of Apple and Live Nation. We need to be very careful here, if we accept a model run by and exclusively for multinational corparations and major record labels, we are going to end up with bland, uncreative music made by rich kids.

PS - This isn't a rant at you personally but it's a point I feel that needs making, when everyone is patting themselves on the back about this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

People as in the artists? Or the consumers who have been ripped off for decades?

If their music is popular enough they will make money. It's all in mass consumer taste.

I'm not sure where to begin with this?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Did I say it was?

You implied it. You said if artists are popular they'll make money. Portishead are popular but they're not making money. So by your theory they're being treated unfairly.

 

[spring hall convert]

Agreed that labels took the piss pre internet. I would say that model was the worst of both worlds - artists still got ****ed (though nowhere near as hard) and the consumer was royally ****ed. The model now is that the consumer is being less ****ed but at the expense of the artist. The guys at the top are still raking it in, the internet was supposed to democratise music and it's ending up doing the reverse.

My issue is that streaming services have taken something that was inherently wrong (illegal downloading) and given it a veneer of respectability whilst ****ing the artist and making huge sums of money for faceless corparations. Do Apple really need to make MORE money? The best way to support music is to buy music and ifrom a source as close to the artist as possible. Having a £10 Spotify sub may ease consciences but most artists would be better off if you illegally downloaded and bought a random sample of 10%.

It's a very tricky area but I would suggest that the remuneration issues in music currently aren't going to be resolved by lining the pockets of Apple and Live Nation. We need to be very careful here, if we accept a model run by and exclusively for multinational corparations and major record labels, we are going to end up with bland, uncreative music made by rich kids.

PS - This isn't a rant at you personally but it's a point I feel that needs making, when everyone is patting themselves on the back about this.

And Apple are cheeky ****ers as well. They more than anyone else (unintended consequence or not) did the most to destroy the old model of arists remuneration through the iPOD. And here they are sweeping in to make $$$$$'s out of the carcass.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agreed that labels took the piss pre internet. I would say that model was the worst of both worlds - artists still got ****ed (though nowhere near as hard) and the consumer was royally ****ed. The model now is that the consumer is being less ****ed but at the expense of the artist. The guys at the top are still raking it in, the internet was supposed to democratise music and it's ending up doing the reverse.

My issue is that streaming services have taken something that was inherently wrong (illegal downloading) and given it a veneer of respectability whilst ****ing the artist and making huge sums of money for faceless corparations. Do Apple really need to make MORE money? The best way to support music is to buy music and ifrom a source as close to the artist as possible. Having a £10 Spotify sub may ease consciences but most artists would be better off if you illegally downloaded and bought a random sample of 10%.

It's a very tricky area but I would suggest that the remuneration issues in music currently aren't going to be resolved by lining the pockets of Apple and Live Nation. We need to be very careful here, if we accept a model run by and exclusively for multinational corparations and major record labels, we are going to end up with bland, uncreative music made by rich kids.

PS - This isn't a rant at you personally but it's a point I feel that needs making, when everyone is patting themselves on the back about this.

I agree with most of this.

And as an aside, my issue isn't with streaming per se; if the majority of the cash it raises went to royalties then it would be difficult to argue against it. But this is the problem, it doesn't. Until this happens ill use my Spotify account in the limited way I currently use it.

 

[spring hall convert]

And as an aside, my issue isn't with streaming per se; if the majority of the cash it raises went to royalties then it would be difficult to argue against it. But this is the problem, it doesn't. Until this happens ill use my Spotify account in the limited way I currently use it.

Streaming is the future, no doubt about it but there needs to be a more ethical model otherwise you are just further loading the dice in favour of those that need the least help.

Most of the greats have taken time to make the best of their work. Unless they are incredibly lucky with label support, the current model does not allow this to happen.

 

[Bozza]

Are people on here just making stuff up?

1. No streaming service is making money. Spotify, the largest, is seeing losses increase year on year still - over €160m last year.

2. Of Spotify's last reported €1.08bn revenues, €882.5m was spent on royalties and distribution costs. Most of what end users pay DOES go back to rights holders.

 

[beorhthelm]

at £10 a month for streaming services, its clear to a blindman that there bugger all royalties to filter down to the artist, and the "big" artists will get the lions share while the fringe artists will get dust.

 

[spring hall convert]

Are people on here just making stuff up?

1. No streaming service is making money. Spotify, the largest is seeing losses increase year on year still.

2. Of Spotify's last reported €1.08bn revenues, €882.5m was spent on royalties and distribution costs. Most of what end users pay DOES go back to rights holders.

So if the streaming model doesn't make any money and the artists outside of the very top tier aren't satisfied with it, what are we supporting?

 

[Bozza]

So if the streaming model doesn't make any money and the artists outside of the very top tier aren't satisfied with it, what are we supporting?

Brighton & Hove Albion