Members richardmac Posted January 12, 2012 Members Share Posted January 12, 2012 I feel pretty safe in saying that Spotify did NOT conquer the United States. The hype and buildup were huge, it came, and very few non-musicians even know what the hell it is. I am paying $5 per month for it and I'm very satisfied with it - it's great! But no one cares. We had countless threads about this. And for all those people on the unlimited free version that will soon be turning into only 10 hours per month... some will convert to $5 per month, some to $10, some will bitch but not upgrade, and some won't notice, because they don't listen to more than 10 hours worth of Spotify per month right now. What does this mean? It means that those who said it would not change how America listened to music were right. Allow me my ten seconds of gloating. Aaaand I'm done now. It might be interesting to discuss why Spotify was not the super massive hit that it was in other countries, but the bottom line answer is simple - the USA is NOT other countries. What works in Sweden won't necessarily work here. I don't see that big bag of hot air, Bob Lefsetz, blogging about how wrong he was about Spotify changing the entire game. No, he's onto the next topic to bitch about, because he bitches about stuff for a living. OR. Or it could be that those who predicted Spotify would take all the marbles were right about the concept but wrong about the time frame. Maybe they still do, but it takes another 5 to 10 years to happen. Or big name artists decide they're sick of the peanuts that Spotify is tossing their way, and they pull out. Some acts have already pulled out of Spotify. So I'm being sort of snarky with this post - obviously the jury is still out on Spotify. Those who thought it would come in like gangbusters were wrong. America is not lining up to rent their music. Will this change in the next 5 to 10 years, though? Hard to say. My prediction is... no, nothing will change, some people will rent their music, but most will not. What about 50 years from now? 100 years from now? I can't even imagine what things will be like. I don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 12, 2012 Members Share Posted January 12, 2012 At the risk of sounding like a skipping CD, I'll say it again: digital music i the US will never be mainstream until they figure out a way to deliver it like radio and TV. It's true, more people are turning to the internet for music, but in terms of overall population, the numbers are small, even after 10 years. Contrast it with radio, when the first AM stations went live in 1920, and in ten years more than half of US households had a radio and by the mid-30s, nearly all did. The content was free, and everyone used it. Turn on a switch and there it was. Fast forward, we are in an age when we can still click on a mouse and have what we want delivered to us, but there the similarity ends. Content has to be paid for, in most respects, and a fair amount of time must be invested to find what one is looking for. And there are few if any gatekeepers among digital providers, so anything and everything gets played. For now, these are all still limiting factors. Will people adjust and invest more of their time and money into music as entertainment? Maybe, but so far it hasn't panned out as experts had predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members niceguy Posted January 12, 2012 Members Share Posted January 12, 2012 I can tell you that a very large amount of non-musicians in their 20s and early 30s are using Spotify quite a bit (that's the age range of my friends). But, it's the free version they're using. Will they convert over to the pay model? I'm guessing only a few will do so. The rest will go back to having nothing. Also, I personally don't know of anyone who listens to the radio, because I live in New York City. No cars = no radio. NYC is a special case, though, and I agree that radio is still the king when it comes to music listenership. But yeah, Spotify is not the next big thing. It's niche, and it'll definitely retain a respectable audience. But it's not going to become massive or mainstream. I myself use Spotify only to check out music which I'm considering buying. I'd love to have a radio station where I could just listen to whatever the DJ puts on, but there aren't any good rock music radio stations anymore. They're all Clear Channel, and so the playlist goes Led Zeppelin, Metallica's Black Album, and AC/DC, over and over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dcodr Posted January 12, 2012 Members Share Posted January 12, 2012 Its a tool. One of many out there. Good, bad or indifferent until its been around long enough to see tangible results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted January 13, 2012 Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 I’ve actually joined Spotify, but I’ve yet to use it. After coming across this thread, I actually logged on there with the intent of exploring it, but something stopped me from taking the plunge and actually trying it out. After reflecting on it, there seems to be several reasons for this: 1. There needs to be a “single” that draws me in and compels me to check out an artist’s other stuff…usually hearing it somewhere first like radio or TV, or being aware about some kind of buzz surrounding a song is what intrigues me enough to listen further. Otherwise I feel lost in a maze of possibilities. I also don't typically look to what my friends are listening to, because it isn't often that their tastes will actually reflect my own. 2. If there’s a specific song I want to hear, I can currently just search YouTube, and find whatever it is I’m looking for… 3. If I’m listening to an “album”, I’m still attached to the idea of listening to the music while reading liner notes, looking at artwork…on-line sort of robs me of that experience. 4. Between working a 40 hour week, amd concentrating on my own music projects, I tend to listen to much less music now than I used to. I really have to want to hear a song for me to take the time to search for it on-line. So for me, there seems to be little need for Spotify. Although I’d like to see it succeed, I’m having trouble motivating myself to become a regular user. If I actually tried it, I might get hooked and want to keep using it…but like with many new things, the challenge is to fight the urge to stick with what I’m already used to. If I am like most people, then therein lies the challenge for Spotify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted January 16, 2012 Members Share Posted January 16, 2012 I feel pretty safe in saying that Spotify did NOT conquer the United States. The hype and buildup were huge, it came, and very few non-musicians even know what the hell it is. I am paying $5 per month for it and I'm very satisfied with it - it's great! But no one cares. We had countless threads about this. And for all those people on the unlimited free version that will soon be turning into only 10 hours per month... some will convert to $5 per month, some to $10, some will bitch but not upgrade, and some won't notice, because they don't listen to more than 10 hours worth of Spotify per month right now.What does this mean? It means that those who said it would not change how America listened to music were right. Allow me my ten seconds of gloating. Aaaand I'm done now. It might be interesting to discuss why Spotify was not the super massive hit that it was in other countries, but the bottom line answer is simple - the USA is NOT other countries. What works in Sweden won't necessarily work here. I don't see that big bag of hot air, Bob Lefsetz, blogging about how wrong he was about Spotify changing the entire game. No, he's onto the next topic to bitch about, because he bitches about stuff for a living. OR.Or it could be that those who predicted Spotify would take all the marbles were right about the concept but wrong about the time frame. Maybe they still do, but it takes another 5 to 10 years to happen. Or big name artists decide they're sick of the peanuts that Spotify is tossing their way, and they pull out. Some acts have already pulled out of Spotify. So I'm being sort of snarky with this post - obviously the jury is still out on Spotify. Those who thought it would come in like gangbusters were wrong. America is not lining up to rent their music. Will this change in the next 5 to 10 years, though? Hard to say. My prediction is... no, nothing will change, some people will rent their music, but most will not. What about 50 years from now? 100 years from now? I can't even imagine what things will be like. I don't want to. Richard, what are you talking about man? No one said Spotify or streaming in general would be some overnight hit in the US! I took a few years to build in N. EU and it's gonna take time to build here. However they are going to have to: Pay artists more $$, and figure out how to get people to pay for the service. When i can get it in my car, mobile and just about anywhere I am, and I can get just about anything I want, then I'll pay. Gonna be years before that happens, if ever in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 16, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 16, 2012 Paying artists more money - you hit the nail on the head. Some artists have already pulled their music. But the money isn't there to pay artists more money. Not at $5 per month for me to listen to unlimited music. I listen to Spotify quite a bit. Still holding out hope? Spotify had its big US launch and the simple fact is that most people aren't interested. This isn't a matter of a day or a year - the launch came and went. I had Spotify invites and I couldn't give them away on Facebook because no one cared. I will grant that the guy doing the most hyping was Lefsetz, the guy who makes a living by complaining about how crappy musicians are nowadays, and all HE produces is a badly written music blog. I still read him, though. Every so often I am on the exact same page with him. I like Spotify a lot. I can pull up almost any album on it. And those I can't? Because the artists have decided not to put their music there, or on iTunes? Those artists are available via other means online. And they deserve to get their music stolen. If you're not on Spotify OR iTunes, you don't want my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scarecrowbob Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 IMO, the fact that in streaming media the broadcaster knows so much about the audience will be the big, game changing thing. You know how when you go to different websites, Google ads automatically place relevant ads there? Imagine when there is widespread high-speed mobile and the preferred car-listening format is something like Pandora or spotify, and they know where you are and what you're interested in. It isn't there now, but spotify is ultimately positioned to be that, much like netflix is positioned to take over sections of the the broadcast TV business. Someone will be doing this. It is what has blown up google and facebook and amazon. Maybe it matters not a bit to artists, but radio is crap advertisement with few measurable results, whereas a play on youtube/spotify/netflix is a 95% certain tracked deal where the ad is specifically targeted to specific kinds of users and that matters a whole lot to the people who actually pay for content, marketers. All this moves slowly, but someone will be making billions off this in the next 10 years, and maybe a little fraction of that will help musicians and artists.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 INVIOLABLE. Only when they find a way to deliver digital music in an inviolable form, will any thing change. Spotify and the like is not a paradigm shift. And nothing will change as long as people can download music for free when ever they want for as long as they want and suffer no consequences. When delivery changes, the paradigm will shift and the rules will change. Spotify is not delivery change. It's delivery adaptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beatpoet Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 It's funny reading about Spotify/digital from a US perspective. Digital sales of singles have been topping CD single sales in the UK since 2005. I'm not sure about Spotify's hold all over the country, but virtually everyone I know that's into music uses it. In contrast, none of our German friends have even heard of Spotify as they don't even have it over there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 INVIOLABLE. Only when they find a way to deliver digital music in an inviolable form, will any thing change. Spotify and the like is not a paradigm shift. And nothing will change as long as people can download music for free when ever they want for as long as they want and suffer no consequences. When delivery changes, the paradigm will shift and the rules will change. Spotify is not delivery change. It's delivery adaptation. This. But I still say, no matter what, any format that demands the majority of consumers go online to seek it out is destined for minority status. This comment by Kurdy above says it all: 4. Between working a 40 hour week, amd concentrating on my own music projects, I tend to listen to much less music now than I used to. I really have to want to hear a song for me to take the time to search for it on-line. Bingo. And how will consumers know they want to hear it if it hasn't been dropped in their lap like TV and Radio used to do? I'm old enough to remeber the Ed Sullivan show. The Beatles and Stones would play, and everyone would rush out and buy the Beatles or Stones albums. Of course, they were all over the radio, too, so most of us had already heard them. This continued into the late 90s, and though MTV had replaced .the network variety shows, millions of albums were sold through the exposure. Clapton's "Unplugged" CD sold a jillion copies based on being on MTV and then radio. But in the 2000s, everything shifted rapidly. Now, unlimited possibilities of the internet has created unintended consequences, not the least of which is the multi-tiered caste system where one level are the well knowns, like Gaga, Prince, Madonna, etc; second level are well-knowns but more niche oriented like Muse, My Morning Jacket, Mumford and Sons, etc, and the third tier are the unknowns, where the vast majority exist struggling to get attention. It's like an iceberg- the top level rises majestically out of the water, the second level sits at the water's edge but is still visible, and the vast majority of the iceberg is underwater, hidden from view and will never be seen. And while it's true that it's pretty much always been this way, now the burden is on the consumer to dive under the iceberg to give it a look, rather than the distributor to show you what's there and bring it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 I find Pandora to be a very convenient delivery system. It's easy to access on my DVD player via WiFi so we put it on often in the evenings while we're having dinner. Better than radio or CDs/MP3 playlists, IMO. And a nice way to discover new (to me, anyway) artists. We're at this odd spot with technology where there are all sorts of different technologies that are all very cool but still don't quite interact as they should/could. But I suspect we're just a few years away from many things becoming more consolidated, a lot of other things falling by the wayside, and new "standards" becoming the norm. I imagine in a few years I'll be running my home, my office and my car all from the same handheld device. My Pandora stations (or whatever the music-delivery system ends up being) will follow me all day long if I choose, and everything will be seamlessly interconnected. Terrestrial radio will be replaced by WiFi/satellite broadcasters. The home-entertainment system will become the "hub" of the house that controls all the electronic devices in the house and handheld devices will be extensions of this hub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members larryguitar Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 How is Spotify better than Grooveshark? I've never tried it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members adorduan Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 I've tried spotify for a couple of months now. The technology works fine. The problem Ihave with it is that the catalog of songs is very spotty once you get out of the mainstream. For example, I'm a big blues fan. If you search for a blues artist, many times there will only be 1 or 2 CD's of their music, and it will be their most popular CD. Well that's exactly what I DON'T need to find/hear. I probably already have that CD or have at least heard it. If the catalog of songs was more complete, I would probably sign up for the pay version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Smoky T Posted January 17, 2012 Members Share Posted January 17, 2012 Interesting band related article on spotify => http://thecynicalmusician.com/2012/01/a-realistic-look-at-spotify-and-streaming/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Here's the deal. If they got it into people's cars it would catch on in a big way but of course the big media corporations will fight to the death to make sure that never happens. As far as listening to other people's stuff, again, I don't have much time for it. I'm constantly either writing, recording/producing or playing my own stuff and stuff I co-write so last thing I want to do is listen to music when i'm not..I listen for references in mixing and I listen to the radio in the truck to stay current with what's going on here in Nashville. Also, If I know something is coming out from one of the artists I like, then I will check it out. I admit though, I don't buy much music anymore. I don't see the point when I can stream anything i'm looking for at any time. Such is the world we live in now for better or worse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 18, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 IMO, the fact that in streaming media the broadcaster knows so much about the audience will be the big, game changing thing.You know how when you go to different websites, Google ads automatically place relevant ads there? Imagine when there is widespread high-speed mobile and the preferred car-listening format is something like Pandora or spotify, and they know where you are and what you're interested in.It isn't there now, but spotify is ultimately positioned to be that, much like netflix is positioned to take over sections of the the broadcast TV business. Someone will be doing this. It is what has blown up google and facebook and amazon.Maybe it matters not a bit to artists, but radio is crap advertisement with few measurable results, whereas a play on youtube/spotify/netflix is a 95% certain tracked deal where the ad is specifically targeted to specific kinds of users and that matters a whole lot to the people who actually pay for content, marketers.All this moves slowly, but someone will be making billions off this in the next 10 years, and maybe a little fraction of that will help musicians and artists.... This is really good stuff. Agree, agree, and agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 18, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 INVIOLABLE. Only when they find a way to deliver digital music in an inviolable form, will any thing change. There is absolutely no way that will happen. Zero chance. I agree with you the vast majority of the time, but you need to move on - there's no way back. What Spotify offers, for a measly $5 per month, is the ability to pirate any song you want legally and feel good about it because the artists are "getting paid", even though they're getting less than a penny per listen. There's no point at all in pirating music any more - your time is worth far far more than $5 per MONTH. Unless you're an obnoxious kid, who isn't going to buy music anyway. Um, except that albums like "The Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall" are not available on Spotify. But you can find them pretty easily on the pirate bay. Instead of pennies, they get nothing. The fact that people won't pay 5 bucks a month for unlimited music shows exactly how little people appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 18, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 I find Pandora to be a very convenient delivery system. It's easy to access on my DVD player via WiFi so we put it on often in the evenings while we're having dinner. Better than radio or CDs/MP3 playlists, IMO. And a nice way to discover new (to me, anyway) artists.We're at this odd spot with technology where there are all sorts of different technologies that are all very cool but still don't quite interact as they should/could. But I suspect we're just a few years away from many things becoming more consolidated, a lot of other things falling by the wayside, and new "standards" becoming the norm.I imagine in a few years I'll be running my home, my office and my car all from the same handheld device. My Pandora stations (or whatever the music-delivery system ends up being) will follow me all day long if I choose, and everything will be seamlessly interconnected. Terrestrial radio will be replaced by WiFi/satellite broadcasters. The home-entertainment system will become the "hub" of the house that controls all the electronic devices in the house and handheld devices will be extensions of this hub. Spotify needs to use the Pandora idea and add it to their main product (not as an app, but as a main feature.) Of course, Pandora owns the technology but Spotify could do something different. Pandora misses with me. It almost never predicts what I'll like, because it uses 5th grade logic. Oh, you like KISS? Then you will like Twisted Sister. No I don't... Oh, you like Genesis? Then you will like Marillion. No I won't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members richardmac Posted January 18, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Here's the deal. If they got it into people's cars it would catch on in a big way but of course the big media corporations will fight to the death to make sure that never happens.As far as listening to other people's stuff, again, I don't have much time for it. I'm constantly either writing, recording/producing or playing my own stuff and stuff I co-write so last thing I want to do is listen to music when i'm not..I listen for references in mixing and I listen to the radio in the truck to stay current with what's going on here in Nashville. Also, If I know something is coming out from one of the artists I like, then I will check it out. I admit though, I don't buy much music anymore. I don't see the point when I can stream anything i'm looking for at any time. Such is the world we live in now for better or worse.. You're right about the cars. Whoever gets in the car might own everything. I'd love to see something like Spotify and Pandora combined, with voice activation. "Computer, play me some Rush before 1985." Satellite radio is not going to win. It has a niche market and most people don't care and won't PAY for RADIO (and why should they?) Once you can put my car on the web, it's GAME OVER. Because then the big media corporations won't be able to do anything. Once you have the Internet, you have whatever you want. Technically I could do this now - I have an iPhone and I have a car stereo that can control it. But the bandwidth costs would be crazy high. Once they are not, it is game over for traditional radio. That's going to be fun to watch - traditional radio needs to be put out of my misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Pandora misses with me. It almost never predicts what I'll like, because it uses 5th grade logic. Oh, you like KISS? Then you will like Twisted Sister. No I don't... Oh, you like Genesis? Then you will like Marillion. No I won't... True, but my experience is that their system works very well with more general-taste (i.e. non-musician) audiences. Which is the audience we're (mostly) all trying to reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 18, 2012 Members Share Posted January 18, 2012 Technically I could do this now - I have an iPhone and I have a car stereo that can control it. But the bandwidth costs would be crazy high. Are they? I have an iPhone that I listen to and pump through my car stereo all the time. I listen to stations via IHeartRadio and similar programs and I don't really come close to using up my bandwidth in any month. I think where we're headed anyway is people are going to pay one monthly fee for their TV, internet and phone and you'll get (virtually) unlimited use of all of that if you pay the required amount. And those fees will cover you on all devices in all areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted January 18, 2012 Moderators Share Posted January 18, 2012 Several cable companies are offering that wi-fi extension service now...how good their reach really is remains to be seen, though. And let's be honest, although digital phone service is way better today, there are still a lot of areas in the Continetnal U.S. where coverage is almost non-existent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted January 19, 2012 Members Share Posted January 19, 2012 Several cable companies are offering that wi-fi extension service now...how good their reach really is remains to be seen, though. And let's be honest, although digital phone service is way better today, there are still a lot of areas in the Continetnal U.S. where coverage is almost non-existent... True, but where will it be in another few years? 10 years ago, most Americans hadn't even HEARD of so many of the devices and technologies we take for granted today. The growth rate is exponential and we're just in the embryonic stages of most of this stuff. Everything we use now is going to look like crystal diode radios and megaphones in another 50 years. And art has always been driven by, and at the mercy of, the technology. And none more so than music. The art of music---not to mention the business of it--goes through huge shifts everytime the technology changes either the creation or the delivery of the music. The entire industry is in flux right now because nobody really knows what ANY of it is going to look like in another 10-20 years from now. Recording, live performance, audience consumption...all these things depend HEAVILY on where the technology will take us. As artists/performers, all we can do is wait for this stuff to settle down so we can then adapt to whatever the new paradigm might look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted January 19, 2012 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2012 oh, absolutely, somewhere else on here I posited the concept of nationwide wi-fi within a few years, and it will happen, and when it does, the paradigm will definitely shift. It wil lreplace terrestrial radio, and it will replace hardwired internet connections. DSL will die off...cable tv will die off...it will be a brave new world....and arguably an expensive new world to boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.