Jump to content

You All Need to Learn The Facts About Spotify


Recommended Posts

  • Members

My only thing with this is .... why can't they just offer the highest quality right away? If I was a new artist who had stuff on Spotify and people were hearing it for the first time, I'd want them to hear the master quality versions. To me it effects the perception of things, but that could be just me. I just can't understand how anyone would settle for a reduced audio quality, but I guess it bothers me because many people don't care and maybe it really doesn't matter ... Of course, a good song is a good song.

 

I just did an A/B take between the same songs on my Itunes library and Spotify and there's no comparison. Itunes is louder, clearer, less muffled. Spotify sounds a bit more compressed and muffled. I don't know exactly what they're doing, but I would assume they're both 128kbps versions of the same song.

 

Then there's the other story about how it "enhances the listener's experience" giving them access to more music and what not, but to me that's just more of the same thing we've had the past decade or so, in which a bunch of niche markets form and there is no real sense of timelessness in the new music. But that's just me, and is another discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

Here we have listening by demand music services via internet since about 3 years, with apps and everything, services who pay royalties to the songwriters.

 

 

Spotify didn't get a licence to start their service because they don't wanna pay the usual broadcast royalties to the composers, as well couldn't get an agreement with the IP owners (record companies). The founder of Spotify seems to be the typical pirate guy, an arrogant asshole who believe his service is a godsend for the world, and he also believes that music should be free, and only he is permittet to cash in on our music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, we either embrace it, or we do not. The consumer will indeed decide.


I see it as pretty compelling. Let's posit an 'average human'.
Let's say that this person is willing to buy one CD per month - or perhaps 10 digital singles. They're spending $120. For that investment, they can own maybe 120 songs.


For that same investment, they can have 'access to' .... ummm...
EVERYTHING
. Seems pretty compelling to me. Especially as this 'access' model is indistinguishable from ownership.


I signed on for the big plan. Why not? And look - My 'Nova-K' stuff is there! So is my "Lee Thomas Band" project! Cool! For less than I have been spending on music, I get everything. ever. recorded. (?)


I think the horse has left this barn. We embrace and adapt, or we're cast aside. It may be a smaller pie, but maybe not. Long tail, here I come.


If someone's not ready to spend $10 month on all their music investments, that's not a consumer in which I am interested, anyhow.

 

 

Actually, there is a lot of difference between owning CDs and owning singles. Ten CDs might well be 120 dollars, but owning 10 digital singles is more like ten bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FWIW...I was listening to Spotify exclusively for a month or so. After a while, I was finding more and more music that was on Rhapsody that was not on Spotify. I haven't logged in to Spotify in a few months and don't really plan to. Also....I don't know one other person who has tried Spotify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Nice... If you have an Iphone, the Rhapsody app is great. You can download any song to your phone and listen offline. You may have a hard time giving that up after a month
:)

probably not, unfortunately, since I don't get a lot of time to listen to music....and the battery on the phone doesn't seem to last much more than a day on a charge, just as a phone...:mad:

 

And it is an Android, not an iPhone...I refuse to fund Apple's gradual takeover of the planet... but I'm sure there's an app for that...:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Here we have listening by demand music services via internet since about 3 years, with apps and everything, services who pay royalties to the songwriters.



Spotify didn't get a licence to start their service because they don't wanna pay the usual broadcast royalties to the composers, as well couldn't get an agreement with the IP owners (record companies). The founder of Spotify seems to be the typical pirate guy, an arrogant asshole who believe his service is a godsend for the world, and he also believes that music should be free, and only he is permittet to cash in on our music.

 

+:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...