Spotify is fab

[Barry mehneth]

I am loving the app Spotify. It is really great to be able to listen to any music you like. How do they make money though? It can?t be just a few adverts between songs.

[edcam]

Spotify rips off artists, so should be avoided.

[StraferJack]

Not all artists agree with edcam's post

And not all of those artists are "big" either

[KalamityKel]

It's also not a particular "new" thing...

*yawns*

[steveo]

This is an eye opener

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac166/Steve_Overbury/selling_out_zps2824e416.jpg

[*Bob*]

An eye-opener (these micro/macro graphics are all the rage) but a complete nonsense.

1m plays will pay about about $7k. So the final 'ta-daaaa!' graphic is out by a factor of nearly 30.

Whether 'the artist' gets all of that is a different matter. But that's because the biggest enemies of 'the artist' are the same as they always have been: the people in between them and the distributor, not the distributor themselves.

[jacks09]

You can also pay for a premium service that allows you to store songs offline and is completely ad free!#

I too think it is fantastic. I have some friends who have seen their music become much more widely listened to through the medium!

[steveo]

Sorry *Bob*

[titch juicy]

I've had premium spotify since it started and frankly I can't think of a better way to spend ?10 a month.

Having the ability to listen to pretty much any album before buying it has meant that I now buy more physical albums than I did before.

[Jeremy]

Spotify rips off artists... not nearly as bad as p2p sharing which was the norm before it came along.

[titch juicy]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spotify rips off artists... not nearly as bad as

> p2p sharing which was the norm before it came

> along.

Depends how you look at it.

From a direct royalties point of view it's not good for the artist; but from an exposure point of view it is. There will plenty of folk like me that will use spotify as a listening post before buying. They will also indirectly benefit from

more peoplem paying for gig tickets because they have first heard a band they like on spotify.

[v_the_gelfling]

Spotify doesn't rip off artists, labels rip off artists. Digital music makes barely any money for the services that sells them but makes plenty for the labels.

[Mick Mac]

Soundcloud is fab too, and its getting better, might rival Spotify some day if it goes "commercial"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JiVzMFo6TQ

[edcam]

Sorry but Spotify isn't good for music and musicians.

[StraferJack]

I repeat, not all musicians agree that spotify is bad for them

[PokerTime]

What I like about spotify is that I will listen to something on there I would never have listened to, or considered buying before. Do sites like spotify reduce copyright theft? I'm not sure. I subscribe to netflix and I love it. I'd much rather pay a fiver or so per month for that than watch live TV, and have to fork out for a licence. But again, does netflix have any impact on reducing copyright theft? Or is is just putting more traditional forms of renting films out of business?

Personally, I think the future is one where we don't need to own CDs or DVDs at all. A monthly fee will be all it costs to have access to much bigger libraries than we could ever afford to buy or find space to keep. And music companies (like film companies have) need to get on board instead of wondering whatever happened to their highly profitable monopolies of both artists and CD sales.

[Jeremy]

Hard to compare to Netflix/lovefilm though. Films which are in demand are only available through PPV. The subscription services get the dregs.

[Tradesman32]

Spotify is fantastic.. We have it with the sonas system and its faultless..Plus with the premium service I can listen at work, abroad, or on other computer that has the download. if I just log in.. Perfect really

[granadaland]

Listening to music on a computer is like having sex on a computer.

[titch juicy]

what about listening through a phone set at 320kbps with good headphones?

[El Pibe]

Naaaa, silly.

I'm setting up a home network using Pure's jongo stuff

http://www.pure.com/wireless/jongo-multiroom-speakers/

it streams your ripped stuff and internet radio to various bits and bobs around your house, including via this thing into seperates hifi stuff, which you can route via a DAC to sound amazing if the hifi fluffins are worth it.

a fuck sight cheaper than sonos too!!!

[El Pibe]

x post

exactly TJ.

On my (home) work desk i listen to my computer with FLAC via

this. through

this

and into these

it sounds pretty good to me (or a 3 quid yellow radio)

All budget stuff too.

[PokerTime]

This whole debate around quality is nonsense now. DJs play off laptops via usb connected sound cards to give the best quality sound. I listen through sennheiser headphones (which are pretty much as good as it gets) and the quality is good enough. You can now link to speakers via USB wifi as well. The need to have lots of seperates in every room doing everything has gone, unless absolute quality is paramount.

[El Pibe]

just to clarify, what's the debate around quality?

If you want quality then the components(from musical source to reproduction) need to be quality.

Doesn't have to be traditional analogue seperates by any stretch, but they still need to be, you know, good, whether you're talking about a sound card, or a standalone wifi active speaker.

Plus what you get has to be tailored to what you're doing with it and where.

So yes, seperates overkill for many a situation.

I've just got the internet radio in my kitchen and a mono speaker in the ceiling in my bog

[*Bob*]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a mono speaker in the ceiling in my bog

I thought life was too short for mono?!