Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
if you label search them, it brings up eight albums and nothing more.
same goes for all the Hardly Art stuff.
as much as i hate the way consumption of music is going, they stand to make a lot of money out of the model in the long run. hence why all the big labels (including Warner, Sub Pop's benefactor) are onboard with it.
of course rational arguements will be lost on you. SPOTIFY IZ CORPORATE BOLLOCKS DUBSTOP LOL
Go away, you tedious elf.
as a criticism of how labels will lose money over Spotify, did you REALLY just link to a tool I'd not heard of, telling me how to rip things from Spotify? Which I won't use, because I like listening to things on Spotify then buying the CD. But now everyone else can use it. Well done.
how easy it is/could be to download free from spotify? He seems to be pretty vocal about how disapproving he is of people that actually do this doesn't he?
does seem a bit stupid to actually put a link there.
but in those same posts he said he listens to music on myspace so, y'know, massive lols.
in the long run it will pump money back into the system. essentially the business model they're attempting to establish is the most realistic antidote to the culture we have now of an online free-for-all where music is concerned - a world where where everyone can get whatever they want, whenever they want, and putting zero back into the 'system'.
face it, we're not going to go back to a world where the only way people obtain a piece of music they want to hear is paying for it on a piece of plastic.
Is it legal to rip music from Spotify?
As this matter has not been tested in a court of law we cannot give any warranty out.
HOW ABOUT 'NO'?
I thought that smaller labels weren't doing so well out of spotify, and that it was mainly the majors that were - is the idea that things will improve?
it's essentially an entirely new way of monetising music consumption.
it is highly weighted towards major labels right now but you need them onboard otherwise it'll die a death.
And it IS a pretty slick piece of software, but i'm still not sure how the money side is going to work in the end? I know that the adverts are pretty terrible, and surely not that profitable?
It's a pretty big issue, i think that digital distribution has caused a big cultural shift that needs to be met with another or more cultural shifts. But then again, what do i know, i only signed up to last fm yesterday. Looks like fun.
and the more people use it the more valuable the advertising revenue will be i guess.
i don't think anyone can say how it'll turn out and if it'll be a viable model in the long run, but it's obvious to everyone, from the biggest major to the smallest bedroom indie, that the current system just is not working any more.
I do think it's good that people are trying things out. And not just theoretically, spotify's a good product. But it still needs some ironing out, and you're right, only time will tell how much.
I'm still not sure where i stand on the idea of music falling down as an industry.
to have that much choice on a portable gadget.
um explain 'benefactors' in this sentence?
yes but isn't that just what is assumed? the clauses of that contract are pretty complicated..
not sure why them being sub pop's benefactor is a pertinent point? it's not like the two labels are comparable in output or idealogy?
i'm just trying to heckle brightonb because he acts like a massive tool.
Spotify is a great tool but a seriously flawed concept. Ultimately it upholds the primacy of music labels rather than the artists that underpin it.
"A source close to Spotify told me he has serious doubts that their business model will add up and that it's a case of "spot the idiot", ie "find somebody stupid enough to buy it before realising that it's too costly to run and that the numbers don't add up to making a profit".
Spotify is currently valued at $250m, despite, according to The Register, only having an advertising income of £82,000 and just 17,000 UK users signing up to pay £120 a year for Spotify Premium. Having equity in the company ensures that the labels get paid if Ek and his colleagues find said "idiot" and decide to sell up (Ek says they have no intention of selling up, by the way). But what does this all mean for the artists?"
Spotify just isn't a sustainable business model, advertising revenues are never going to be high enough/ there's absolutely no incentive to subscribe. The only way i can see it potentially growing is if it offers a supscription service for mobile devices like the iphone..
they launched the mobile service like two weeks ago, and it's only for premium accounts?
the other thing i'll say re: "Ultimately it upholds the primacy of music labels rather than the artists that underpin it."
you are NEVER going to have a situationw where artists are solely in charge of their own careers, because of the simple fact that you need to invest money and expertise in an artist to get them known, be it in recording, subsidising tours, pr work, advertising, whatever. every single artist who have gone "their own way" recently and bleated on in the press about how the notion of the record label is dead are ones who got their breaks under the old system.
name me one artist who has achieved some level of success in recent times without an outside source, be it a label or a management company or whatever, investing in them? yeah, there aren't any, are there?
But the thing is, if Spotify (or anything like that) becomes the main source of income in the music biz instead of record sales, artists will get an even smaller share than before...
I'm not advocating some kind of utopian situation in which musicians are the sole beneficiaries of their work. What i do find uncomfortable is a business model that creates a situation in which Major lables are, potentially, the ONLY serious beneficeries of the music produced. The model advocated by spotify has potential but i don't think it's been thought through properly yet/ in its current form seems to be more of a slash and grab than a serious long term plan
An artist gets less royalties form a song bought on itunes than one bought in a shop. Yet the overheads are much much smaller. It's not Spotify's model that is fucking the artists it's the major labels approach to any new way of distributing music.
if they arent getting much out of it, illegal downloading takes abit of effort/risk/hassle that puts alot of people off, if spotify got everyone on board and becomes established I reckon it would lead to less record sales just because its as easy as opening an application not matter where you are (and iphone spotify just seems crazy), there cant be that much money in advertising as how often does anyone click on any internet advert, its not like tv ads somehow using the internet we learn to just filter it out, just seems like they are giving away music for no reason and I dont think it will pay off in the long run
is that it really doesnt matter what you think
Sub Pop are changing distributors in Europe, so the old one has taken the content down. presumably the new one will put it back up.
Bleach, Hope for Men, Avatar, The Body The Blood The Machine and The Woods, let's be honest.
better than hope for men, i'd say.
and Flight of the Conchords and...etc etc
crucial sub pop records and you come up with flight of the conchords?
at least pull me up on the lack of Mudhoney or something.
And Marissa Nadler, which I was looking forward to listening to.