farfromthesun
pfm Member
Some interesting views contained; pretty grim reading all things considered.
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-muzak-pelly
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-muzak-pelly
(Long, scathing) Article on Spotify
- Thread starter farfromthesun
- Start date
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
I read this recently. I have, but don't use Spotify, and mainly go to Bandcamp to discover new music. I pay for it and download it, never use playlists, and use Qobuz to stream oddities I don't already have.
The idea of playlists over which artists have no control is horrendous.
The idea of playlists over which artists have no control is horrendous.
wylton
Naim and Mana member
Try telling Ed Sheeran that; his net worth was $65 million at the last count. You're dreaming if you think that there are not loads of people making a whole bunch of money out of the music scene.
Good read that. I use Deezer for discovering new music and try before you buy listening, mainly just through brand loyalty.
I used to use Spotify but don't like the interface. Will definitely think twice before using it again. What she doesn't mention there is the scandal a while back of them using their own music in playlists to avoid paying royalties to anyone else.
I used to use Spotify but don't like the interface. Will definitely think twice before using it again. What she doesn't mention there is the scandal a while back of them using their own music in playlists to avoid paying royalties to anyone else.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
I have yet to try Tidal, but for my purposes Qobuz and, to a lesser extent, Spotify have too much catalogue missing to make them a true alternative to curating your own music collection.
formbypc
pfm Member
Why is it any different from creating a playlist on your own device, or hopping from one disc to another manually?
Seanm
pfm Member
It's that brands are creating playlists as if they were regular users (and these are being pushed by Spotify). So the question is, how is Starbucks putting a band on its playlist different from Starbucks paying a band to use its song for for an advert? And the answer is, it isn't - except that the band doesn't get a choice in the matter and doesn't get paid. "Automated selling out," the author calls it. Good article.
Bananahead
pfm Member
Or simply listening to a radio station.
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
My music collection is CD (ripped or not), LP, and bought downloads (mainly Bandcamp at the moment, but some jazz or classical from other sources). Qobuz is for fun. So basically I am in agreement with you. (Shock horror!
)
formbypc
pfm Member
... is it any different from Starbucks, Costa or whoever playing a music selection on random shuffle in-store, except the artist gets paid a minimal amount, non-specific to them, through licencing for public playing of music?
They still get no control over when they get played. And, as was said above, artists have no control over radio stations. How would Steeleye Span feel, for instance, about being sandwiched between The Damned and The Dictators on Peel in 1997?
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
I think they would be pretty damned stoked. But I can’t imagine Peel playing The Dictators in 1997.
irb
pfm Member
Here's blog in a rather similar vein, pointing out some consequences of the streaming revolution in general: http://www.skylarkensemble.org/blog
Dave H.
Revolutionary relativist
The scales are tipped massively towards the top. Ed Sheeran is one of the current behemoths of the industry. Taylor Swift is doing fine too. But for artists at the other end, there's nothing like the money there used to be. Physical format sales are a fraction of what they used to be, and aren't compensated for by the money Spotify plays etc generate unless you're big enough for it to hardly matter.