Fuck off spotify
i dont like spotify. i liked putting effort into hearing records. Also this website has WAY too much spotify based content now, in my opinion, very lazy journalism. You cant just reduce an article down to "just listen to the record".
blah blah blah blah blah
- Relevant artist taggings:
- None
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
you don't like being able to listen to millions of albums from all over the world
instantly for free?
the stupidest thing said on a music lovers site ever, possibly.
I'm not really feeling it either
its really annoying that there isnt even a tracklist most of the time to even tempt non users to listen.
just seen track lists are in the articles now
woooop!
its just the board that are offenders of this now then!
How can you put effort into listening to music? How does spotify deprive you of this?
just put your fingers in your ears when you're listening to albums on spotify then
that enough effort for you?
Fuck off tv_party
Love
Spotify
Spotify: ruining the lives of High Fidelity types since 2009
<sound of cork popping> "hooray!"
^
hah
come on, this is a Drowned in Sound message board, everyone here is a High Fidelity type. post me a list of reasons why it isnt so in order of importance :p
toot toot, another retarded drownedinsound thread
music's only good with effort involved! those plebs who just *listen* to music don't get my sophisticated taste at all!
that's a bit mental
you want to make it harder to find records, so that by reaction you give them more time / the proper concentration levels?
Fuck that, Canute.
when i buy a new LP
I stand hunched over the record player, eyes straining, teeth clenched, listening so hard that I can barely hear the music over the sound of myself going HHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNNGGGG
:D
strong posting
I think drownedinsound have responed to Spotify in the only way they can.
It's not 'lazy journalism' at all. People can't seem to be bothered to read reviews as it is (generalisation, I know, but there was a thread about it), so incorporating Spotify is probably the way to go.
yeah
cus clearly it takes no time to put together a playlist.
people really-really like these playlists when we've done them, so encouraged by people actually being positive for a change (and our stats backing it up) we're going to continue to do playlists.
DiS puts up in the realm of 25,000 - 30,000 words some weeks, so we're anything by lazy.
btw sean
half the links i click on the site lead me to a "400: bad request" page
really?
hrm, this happened to me yesterday. can you try clearing your cookies? (that solved it for me) tom's been working overtime trying to fix this.
Listening *is* annoyingly easy, isn't it?
You wake up and it happens in spite of you. If only we could all be partially deaf, then we could put effort into all the listening we do.
Anyway, if you think anyone substitutes buying records/albums for Spotify, then you're mental. And anyone who does that is mental. Spotify is a great try-before-you-buy tool.
Or just skint...
Yeah, or that too.
Spotify has increased my album buying rate to a financially crippling point
yes
The ads drive me to buy more music. Is that part of their aim? Cos it's workin. I don't think Lou Reed would've wanted "Amilliondifferentnames From Spotify" popping up in the middle of his records. I think the only problem I have with it is the ads. And I simply refuse to pay to get rid of them. I simply refuse!
oh no wait
I don't think people who substitute Spotify for buying albums are mental at all. But I couldn't hack it myself. Better sounding copy with no ads in is the way to go for me.
It ruins the flow of Metal Machine Music when Jonathan from Spotify tells me about the great offers.
I just can't get back into it after he's chimed in.
It's not actually on there!
For shame. "Metal Music Machine" is though. Argh my ears. They're almost begging for Ezekiel from Spotify to do another ad about ads.
but the ads are such a tiny price to pay for what you're getting
and surely that's the only thing keeping them afloat
I know!
it doesn't stop them from getting on my wick though
I cannot see in a million years why someone would not like Spotify
You can use it, to listen to music for FREE. if you like the music, you go to Amazon or your indie shop and buy it on vinyl/cd, get home play it and realise that maybe 6months ago you might have bought an album you weren;t sure about.
Spotify is about exposure and evaluation more than anything.
a trillion billion million willion times this
What I find strange
is that this is a site supporting and promoting independent music, whilst seemingly being right behind Spotify. You'll notice a lot of truly independent stuff isn't available on Spotify - that's because the deal for small independent labels is HORRIBLE. Seriously hardly worth bothering with. All the majors are on there now because they've been given a guaranteed return (and there's fuck all chance of any of that money actually reaching the artists who make the music that's being listened to), whereas the indies are getting shafted hard. It's barely preferable to digital piracy.
As much as I like Spotify as a service, the sooner it goes bust or SERIOUSLY revamps the deals it puts in place with labels and artists, the better.
That's rubbish
I've found loads of relatively obscure stuff on spotify, it's certainly not just major label stuff.
Nnnggg
Read the post, I never said it was just major label stuff... Just that the deal for independent labels is awful. Plenty still choose to go with it because they hope it will deter piracy, but that doesn't change the fact it's a terrible, terrible deal.
^totally this
What is the difference between the major label deal and the indie deal?
I think you need to elaborate.
The major labels have been given a guaranteed figure of return
i.e. regardless of how much of their content is actually streamed, they will all get at least a set figure in the millions. The indies are (barely) being accounted to on a stream by stream basis.
yeah
basically it's working like this;
Spotify have an agreement with the IFPI under which they are essentially paying the Majors to host their content.
From what I understand, independent labels either have the choice to broker a deal with Spotify on an individual basis (with reportedly poor rates) or to join IFPI and sign up to their belief systems etc.
That's for recordings
As far as publishing goes, each individual country's royalty collection agency has individual agreements eg. STIM (the Swedish version of PRS) has been quoted in various places as having a deal where they collect 10% of total revenue generated by their members.
So the publishing royalty as I understand it does not vary between independent and major composers within a certain territory but the mechanical royalty and licensing revenues vary enormously between IFPI members and non-members
The other thing is that Spotify grew its listenership in a legally grey manner by streaming as a beta and distributing music they didn't have licensing or permission to distribute - more or less as a pirate p2p - and in some reported instances refused to remove copyrighted material at the request of the copyright owners (much like Pirate Bay)
So yeah, Spotify have succeeded by basically centering their legal policy around satisfying the IFPI
Oh, and by the way
the deal they have with IFPI is NOT a permanent deal. The whisper I hear is that it is a one year rolling contract with a get out clause if an application is released by a third party that enables easy ripping of Spotify content
so make of that what you will
I'm not up to date on their royalty payment policies
but for me, having this service has allowed me to listen to bands I probably never would have without Spotify, and now own their records due to enjoying them and wanting to be able to listen to them at my leisure.
Having bought the record after listening to it on Spotify, I think that meagre royalty payments (according to you,I have no idea really) are off-set by actual sales. The exposure gained from this is a viable marketing tool for any independents out there, allowing people to preview the band, and buy the record afterwards if they so choose, whilst still potentially receiving royalties from the listens via the service if people choose not to buy their music.
I don't really say anything wrong with Spotify at all, it's the first truly exciting thing to happen to the music industry in a while.
So the fact that it is off-set by actual sales as a result of gained exposure
could be applied to illegal downloading? Just the meagre royalties (not worth bothering with) make people feel a little bit better?
If people want to download
an artists music, they will regardless. I don't think Spotify exacerbates the problem at all, for people who respect the fact that artists should be payed for their output I think Spotify provides an a unique tool to get a better understanding of what a band is like better than listening to a few songs off of Myspace can provide, which don't give full understandings of artists music in the context of an album.
I think the sales off-setting being negated by illegal download argument you're putting forward is a bit redundant because for the music fans out there with integrity, it's available to listen to, and then you can go get the record after you've sampled it. Obviously there are people out there who may just go down the download route, but these are probably the types of people who won't be out scouring blogs and the new release transcripts to listen to those records that have elluded you for ages, as opposed to the people (like me) who have sampled an album off of Spotify, and than gone out and got an artists back catalogue as a result of finally getting around to listening to them.
As I said, i'm not sure about the royalties with this service, but something is better than nothing, however little it is. I mean, does Myspace pay royalties? Plenty of people listen to bands music on there.
It doesn't really apply to illegal downloading, does it?
With downloading people just keep the files and don't buy the music. While there are a few who'll delete the files and then go and buy the music, they're a minority. There's much more incentive to buy the album after listening to something on Spotify.
Yes, both increase exposure, but both don't necessarily lead to increased sales.
disagree
a Norwegian research group recently published a paper that concluded people who download illegally are 20 times more likely to buy music than those who don't download illegally - but that's a different thread
and to treborforever;
Spotify themselves have stated on many occasions that they do see their main market and demographic as those who would normally be using Pirate Bay and torrents etc. so they themselves admit to capitalising on the try-it-then-buy-it ethos behind a lot of illegal downloads. As technology develops however and mobile internet becomes omnipresent then perhaps streaming will become the default method of consuming music - after all you're only using a turntable to stream the vibrations from your vinyl or a laser to stream information from your CD
Spotify may actually end up creating more problems than it solves
I personally have bought more music since having Spotify
If I downloaded it instead, I'd be less likely to buy it since I've already got it on my computer, and can listen to it on my mp3 player.
^This is generally what I was getting at.
I used to do this as well.
it would really really really really fucking suck
if the only way you could hear music was on a streaming service.
i dunno. i download illegally and then still buy records that i can find
a lot of the stuff i listen to was made by kids in the 80s and theres no way i could track down a physical copy on vinyl or anything like that, let alone afford half of it, so i download it. most of the stuff i download which i could track down i end up buying if i listen and like it and its available.
i dont see how spotify would be any different.
people that dont want to pay for music, and use spotify, still wont want to pay for it.
people who like try before you buy, will use spotify and buy it, or people who download it will be the same.
i dont see why listening to it on spotify and downloading it are any different in terms of choosing to buy it at a later date. if you want a physical copy of the music, it doesnt make any difference how you first heard it does it?
Yeah, fair enough.
While I do think that people are less likely to buy if they have the files already, even if they don't mean to do it, perhaps the numbers less than I thought.
idk, I hate discussing downloading etc. It always seems to end in a discussion that requires a lot of assumption and generalisation on either side.
there are whole genres missing
there are only like 4 dubstep thinsg on it and masses of electronic stuff in general, thats the main reason I haven't bothered with it really. Plus I have fuck loads of music to listen to anyway...
the main reason for all this stuff is
doing 1 deal with one major = squillions of tracks
doing 1 deal with one indie or one of many indie distributors = a few hundred tracks
both deals probably take about the same amount of time to do, if not the latter taking slightly longer as they've not done a deal like this before.
the only reason we've used them is because people seem to really like having content curated for them and find our playlists a good starting point to explore further and further.
sure there are flaws in this site but don't go making up some conspiracy about DiS being in bed with the majors - we've got Jeffery Lewis on the frontpage for frigsake!
not me gov
looks like someone has to learn to reply in the right place heheh
has retard thread starter replied yet?
Go on, justify it a little bit more :)
mika is a genius
chris martin is alright
spotify...
...and articles about it are completely of no use to me.
i'm the lone "usa" guy here. when are we getting it? i wanna join yr party
this too
not everyone has Spotify
I kind of agree with the op
but it's not like I don't like spotify because I do but I don't pay as much attention to albums as I should if I listen to it on spotify.
I don't care if you don't like it.
I'm off to listen to:
1) Part 1 of In A Silent Way by Miles Davis
2) Jonathan from Spotify followed by
3) probably a Snow Patrol advert
4) Part 2 of In A Silent Way by Miles Davis
And how the hell else do you expect a music website to respond to rapid developments in new media technology? Shut down the site and mail out a bi-weekly magazine with a 7-inch attached? It's not lazy journalism - it's proactive and encourages user content. The gap between journalist and listener/user/customer is, for better or worse, growing inexorably smaller.
(types 'miles davis' into spotify search)
...holy fuck!
I know...
Good news, isn't it? Have fun getting through that lot.
Spotify is similarly decisive on Charles Mingus and John Coltrane.
there's no longer enough hours in my day.
i might try and get that pill they're designing to allow people to get by on one hours sleep a day :D
I haven't got Spotify.
I doubt I ever will. There's too much stuff on there.
I can't comment on DiS' content cos I haven't really read it in years (despite over 5 year's of daily board reading - sad, isn't it?). Apart from the slowcore/shoegaze weeks, which were really good and didn't use spotify at all, iirc. There are a lot of threads that are pretty much spotify-user only though. Meh. Not the end of the world.
So in short, I partly agree. But only partly.
Go on, call me a retard.
Too much stuff?
Oh come on, you don't have to listen to it all!
that's like going to a restaurant and complaining that there's too much food on offer
no it's not
a long menu at a restaurant usually does mean that the food will be bad quality. not always, but it's a strong indicator. a short menu allows focus on each dish, better relationship with the producers as you'll be getting a lot of a few products, rather than the other way round and you'll find it easier to change your menu. a shorter list also allows you to read each item on the menu and realise that thought went in to the choice of food on offer.
basically.
Really?!
I am less sure.
i will, because you are
retard. there is a search function you know.
Spotify is ace, yeah.
But I can kinda get one aspect of his argument. I mean, DiS do refer to spotify very heavily, to the point where one might presume they have commercial interests in one another.
Not that it's a really bad thing.
some general responses to the OUTRAGE i have caused (sowwwyy)
1. No one else likes crate digging for gems?
2. No one else feels rewarded/satisfaction by buying records and adding them to their collection?
3. Posting what is essentially just a list of records and not really writing anything about them is, in my eyes, lazy. This is of course by in comparison to websites who write stuff about records.
4. I enjoy reading about and researching bands. I like looking through wikipedia and myspace and getting a feel for it and then searching out records. Spotify makes it too easy, and its boring. Even having trawl through blogs to find free downloads from mediafire is more fun.
oh yeah and the one time i did use it, it didnt have minor threat. boink!
oh yeah and another point that i'd like to raise about the Dis spotify content
is that i do not like how it is excludes people who don't have the software. It wouldn't be very good if you could only view the site in Internet Explorer (or Safari) would it?
You can do crate digging online, its just not literal crate digging and it doesnt cost money for the privelege
No one else feels rewarded/satisfaction by buying records and adding them to their collection?
That's not stopped by spotify is it? They aren't mutually exclusive.
I enjoy reading about and researching bands. I like looking through wikipedia and myspace and getting a feel for it and then searching out records. Spotify makes it too easy, and its boring.
You're boring.
1. No, no I don't...
...for people like myself who simply cannot afford to buy records on a whim, Spotify is an absolute godsend. If I was to go out and purchase every record, EP and single that I took a vague interest in then I would have drowned in my own debt by now. If you can afford to this then brilliant, but clearly not everyone can. Throwing away £13 on an LP that I may or may not like is not something I can realistically do.
2. See above point; if anything, someone like myself who can't afford to buy records regularly takes even greater pleasure in purchasing a new record than someone who does so willy-nilly. Completely presumptive of course, but so if the majority of both sides of this arguement.
3. and 4. So if posting lists of records without much criticism, thus allowing the reader to seek out, listen to and form an individual opinion of the music of their own accord, isn't encouraging people to research and discover music independantly then what does?
I personally do not particularly revel in the process of attempting to locates ways of hearing music. I enjoy actually listening to it, and Spotify allows me to do so. So I like it. I mean, too easy? Seriously?
hiiyyuurr
my point about digging for music:
you can do this AND get the music for free on blogs and torrents
my point about the journalism:
this is actually about the JOURNALISM itself and not really the way in which you get to hear records. You got a music magazine site to read about the records, not just get a list of stuff and not really know much about it. I am all up for being able to hear music on websites like this (like pitchfork has that little lala player and stuff) but you can just be like
HERE IS 50 IMPORTANT SHOEGAZE ALBUMS
LINK
why are they important? what was the band all about? where were they from? when were they around? and so on and so forth. Like i say, that point is about journalism and not really about music.
ALSO, advertising in the middle of records? PUKE. That really shouldn't be considered acceptable practice should it. I find that really offensive.
Its quite sweet how angry you all are about this though. awie! dont through too many toys out of your e-prams boys and girls!
dispite your elaboration, you are still wrong and come across as a muso snob
and how do you expect this forum to react with your truly idiotic original post. who do you think you are kissinginkansas?
cchhhiiilll wiinnsttoon
what exactly was so idiotic about anyway? because i don't like something that you do? you're very angry. This is a muso's website to be fair and i am a muso, if you're just wanting to listen to a few songs or whatever, then by all means go spotify nuts, what im saying is that i think its boring having such easy access to music, and i dislike how everything is just like GO ON SPOTIFY AND LISTEN TO IT and i think it will make people lazy. Its like how people dont tell jokes anymore, they just link a youtube video. Why is it such a big deal that i like trawling and digging for records? Do you hate me because i like getting the tube out of the way to go to Pure Groove?
fuck off Spotify. i dont like spotify. i liked putting effort into hearing records
is an idiotic comment - telling a piece of software to fuck off because it makes one of you favourite pastimes(listening to lots of good music) easier. I'm not angry, in-fact I was eating some nutella on toast when I wrote my last post and was in an upbeat mood and still an. Also I don't hate you, I never said that and I really don't, especially not for going to record shops. I also go to record shops, they are great, but so is spotify.
just going and listening to it isn't lazy
there is a ridiculous, obscene amount of music in the world, only a select amount that you will like. It's not hard enough listening to all music and finding what you like, you have to crate dig and all this stuff?
I don't think people care if you do it but you're saying there's something wrong with doing it another way.
There's a difference between linking to a youtube video and telling a joke too, who wants to listen to someone giggle through a badly retold scene from a film or tv programme or something? That's not a real joke.
a lot of people seem to be missing the 'fun' aspect of the digging
thats what is removed by spotify imo. Kind of like buying records online in comparison to going to a record shop? Its just simply not as good!
also, millionaire, i think you didnt really get what i meant about the youtube links thing.
ALSO, no one has addressed my point about how it would be bad if you could only view this website in specific browsers, which i think is the essentially the same thing and highlights a lot of what im trying to say.
The fun is in the listening to the music!
Do you like music, or do you like unearthing things that nobody has heard ever or for 20 years?!
listening to music = fun, digging = fun
fun + fun = double fun!
spotify = fun
fun + fun + fun = triple fun!
M-M-M-M-M-M-MONNNSTERR FUN!
thats just your opinion though
buying records in physical stores doesn't float my boat at all.
I don't get what you meant by the youtube things.
I can see you point
"ooooh, matron", etc.
I don't think vultures would have swarmed in quite such numbers if this had been your thread-starting post.
* your
Shit!
DiS' Spotify content isn't INSTEAD of writing about records...
...it's IN ADDITION to. And not everyone wants to read a 5-600 (maybe even more words) review to find out about bands. It's not really lazy at all.
Take the Great Escape playlist for example. Most of those bands wouldn't have been written about for a festival preview where you typically look at a handful of bands and exclude other bands. This way gets round that somewhat.
feel like it might be a good time
to post this: http://www.nme.com/news/spotify/44535
opinions?
i'd bet a large amount on that not happening
for a tenner a month you could download as many albums as you want ? there's no way that would work financially, surely.
I'm not sure sportify works financially as it is now
to be honest, and to be honest I have no clue about it.
how about THAT for an argument!
I can't believe that'll happen
Really?
me either
not with the whole catalouge anyway, they will just get people who are up for it involved. But it will only be tempory so I guess if it brings in lots of people to sportify who want to DL stuff then when they stop it, alot of people are going to stay and keep using.
Apparently it's bollocks!
My problem with Spotify
is that none of the music/bands I like is on there.
you must like some crap music
http://open.spotify.com/track/6BBWvoZAB9S7WabVAKPeLr
I mean Chris Montez - Call Me is on there. That should be good enough for most people.
oi wisgard!
you're BENT!
love from alwrightylewfromtheinternet :D
Not every DiS reader lives in a country with spotify access... (ie, not me)
you bumder
I don't like the word 'spotify'
That's really all I have to say about it.
It's not really mucg good for me as i listen to most of my music on my iPod.
I'd say that makes up about a good 95% of the time I spend listening to stuff. I can barely find the time to play music at home and I enjoy walking around immersed in a new album anyway.
Spotify will really impact on me when I can use it on some form of portable device. However, I struggle to see what would strictly distinguish that state of affairs from me simply "owning" the album. Not much I guess.
Ah.
*closes spotify*
This probably doesn't warrant it's own thread, but...
Roberta from Spotify? Definitely would.
http://tiny.cc/eggKR
Just saying.
www.robertafromspotify.co.uk
It did warrant its own thread in my eyes.
Three months ago!
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4160332
she probably has boyfriend
wouldn't want to step on his toes.
The worst thing about Spotify
Is frequenting DiS and being from a country that can't use it :(