ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
Raeuber:Last week I had some friend visiting me. And I took the chance for a test: I streamed music via Spotify (free account with only 160 kbs) from my IPad to Apple TV connected to BV 7. Simultaneously the same music was played from CD in my Beosound 9000. We listened to the music from my Beolab 1 and I asked my friends if they can hear a diffence and if so which source sounds better. ALL of my friends had the opinion that there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality! So please tell me why not use Spotify for music listening or are the Beolab 1 so bad or does all of my friends (including myself) have a hearing damage?? Greets Räuber
I streamed music via Spotify (free account with only 160 kbs) from my IPad to Apple TV connected to BV 7. Simultaneously the same music was played from CD in my Beosound 9000. We listened to the music from my Beolab 1 and I asked my friends if they can hear a diffence and if so which source sounds better. ALL of my friends had the opinion that there is NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality!
So please tell me why not use Spotify for music listening or are the Beolab 1 so bad or does all of my friends (including myself) have a hearing damage??
Greets
Räuber
I used to think that the wood is full of trees - all green --- pretty dull and uninteresting in fact.
Untill my wife began to tell me of the many different trees, leaves, roots and the immense different shades of the green of the leaves.
Listening (to music) is not anything that we just do or just can - it is something that has to be trained, and may get improved over time.
Especially in times where people are corrupting their sense for listening to music - too much sound everywhere and bad equipment to listen from - you will get such results in most tests.
But it does not mean that there is no difference to be heard!
You may call that 'a hearing damage' - I would rather call it 'a bad hearing habit'.
On the other hand - if your friends (and you) are satisfied with what they (you) get from a 160 Kbs file, please stay with it.
I shall not be the one to try to convince you in that matter.
Greetings Millemissen
There is a tv - and there is a BV
Killyp: Going back to the business of Spotify, I have seen artists put out their albums on Spotify only to find their sales plummet on iTunes, Amazon and Bandcamp, but have a marginal increase of plays/hits. Spotify is driving the industry further towards music written specifically to earn money, label intervention in the creative process and less independence for musicians to create music the way they want.
Going back to the business of Spotify, I have seen artists put out their albums on Spotify only to find their sales plummet on iTunes, Amazon and Bandcamp, but have a marginal increase of plays/hits.
Spotify is driving the industry further towards music written specifically to earn money, label intervention in the creative process and less independence for musicians to create music the way they want.
Isn’t this always the way it has been? In the past we had vinyl only, later the cd, and always there was this ongoing debate about the royalties. Now we live in a time where music is also presented digital and big institutions like Soundcloud, Youtube, Google Play, Spotify and what not, they all benefit. And why did iTunes remove their drm from their tracks a few years ago? iTunes, or should I say iTune$, is no better than Spotify in this matter as you put it, if you look at the big picture here. They all change the rules for their own interest, not the artist’s interest.
Because of the digital presence of music we live in, the way I see it now, is that when artists create new music, and it leaves their hands, they have absolutely no control how it’s going to be presented in the world. They don’t own it anymore. End of story. And as much I was accustomed to own my music, as a Spotify user I don’t have the feeling I own it no longer either. As long I have access to it, anywhere in the world, I can live with that. Like I said earlier, it’s unstoppable. I don’t have an answer how the (new) artists could earn more money and to be honest, it’s not really my problem. I pay 120 euros a year, which is more then I was as a regular iTunes client. Spotify and the interface that works with it is so much more convenient than browsing through my own library. Maybe artists should work more on the relationship with their record companies, before it leaves their hands. I am just a user who also acts in my own interest and convenience.
DoubleU: Killyp: Going back to the business of Spotify, I have seen artists put out their albums on Spotify only to find their sales plummet on iTunes, Amazon and Bandcamp, but have a marginal increase of plays/hits. Spotify is driving the industry further towards music written specifically to earn money, label intervention in the creative process and less independence for musicians to create music the way they want. Isn’t this always the way it has been? In the past we had vinyl only, later the cd, and always there was this ongoing debate about the royalties. Now we live in a time where music is also presented digital and big institutions like Soundcloud, Youtube, Google Play, Spotify and what not, they all benefit. And why did iTunes remove their drm from their tracks a few years ago? iTunes, or should I say iTune$, is no better than Spotify in this matter as you put it, if you look at the big picture here. They all change the rules for their own interest, not the artist’s interest. Because of the digital presence of music we live in, the way I see it now, is that when artists create new music, and it leaves their hands, they have absolutely no control how it’s going to be presented in the world. They don’t own it anymore. End of story. And as much I was accustomed to own my music, as a Spotify user I don’t have the feeling I own it no longer either. As long I have access to it, anywhere in the world, I can live with that. Like I said earlier, it’s unstoppable. I don’t have an answer how the (new) artists could earn more money and to be honest, it’s not really my problem. I pay 120 euros a year, which is more then I was as a regular iTunes client. Spotify and the interface that works with it is so much more convenient than browsing through my own library. Maybe artists should work more on the relationship with their record companies, before it leaves their hands. I am just a user who also acts in my own interest and convenience.
+1 Unfortunately, you are trying to provide logic to a rant, with predictable results. He still has a way to go:
....and finally: JOY.
MM
DoubleU:And why did iTunes remove their drm from their tracks a few years ago? iTunes, or should I say iTune$, is no better than Spotify in this matter as you put it, if you look at the big picture here. They all change the rules for their own interest, not the artist’s interest.
Yes, in their own collective interest i.e. the labels were party to that (I believe).
DoubleU: I pay 120 euros a year, which is more then I was as a regular iTunes client.
I spend more than that in iTunes - but for a combination of content e.g. books, Apps, etc. I saw an Ars Technica poster go *gulp* when they totalled up their iTunes expenses for a year which was in excess of US$1,400 - I suspect I am in that league, with most of the expense being for video content. On the other hand I have over 18,000 music tracks - 1% of which came from iTunes and 99% from CD ripping. I suspect my CD collection cost me tens of thousands of dollars.
DoubleU:Spotify and the interface that works with it is so much more convenient than browsing through my own library.
I have tried the Spotify free one month premium, and I have kept it around (even with Ads) for several months. And it has been semi-useful in finding new artists and exploring their catalogue.
However, this past week I have been trying a new iTunes 11 feature that I discovered by accident - I have been using it for a week to "spottily" my collection of 18,000 tracks - I have listened to three random Genius seeds of continuous music and thoroughly enjoyed days, non-stop, of my music.
Apple: Use Genius Shuffle Press and hold the Option key, and click near the top-left of the iTunes window. You can also choose Controls > Genius Shuffle. To change the selection of songs, repeat the above step.
Press and hold the Option key, and click near the top-left of the iTunes window. You can also choose Controls > Genius Shuffle.
To change the selection of songs, repeat the above step.
MacRumors:Another new feature in iTunes 11.1: Genius Shuffle. This feature—accessible from the Controls menu, by pressing Option-Space, or by holding down the Option key and clicking on the new Genius Shuffle icon in the toolbar—automatically creates a mix of related songs from your library that iTunes thinks you will enjoy; think of it as a random Genius Mix. Click Genius Shuffle again to hear a totally new set of tunes.
BeoNut since '75
Heard an interesting interview with Frank Zappa where he said some thing to the effect that the music industry started going down hill as soon as the executives started to believe they knew what they were doing with rock music. That is, in the early days of rock, the execs had no clue because it was brand new and very foreign to they did know so they were willing to try just about anything. Once the "kids" who "understood" music got into positions of power, this "try anything" ethos disappeared because the exec now knew what they were doing, and this was the beginning of the end. There's probably a lot of truth to this.
I just discovered Spotify with the last upgrade to the BS5, and I've already bought more music in the last month than I bought in the last 3-4 years. It has let me check out those albums that I was not sure if they were worth it to buy far more than the 30 second trials you get from iTunes or Amazon. I want to listen to the whole thing before I buy (maybe a couple times!), and I'm willing to pay $120 a year for this privilege. I still buy music that I think will stand the test of time - but this is still few and far between.
Stan
Raeuber:We did the test by many fast A/B switch-overs to compare. Probably there is another result when listening to music for a few hours with the different sources. Or when listening to highend speakers like Beolab 5. Beolab 1 are good but not highend speakers, for sure!
Probably there is another result when listening to music for a few hours with the different sources. Or when listening to highend speakers like Beolab 5. Beolab 1 are good but not highend speakers, for sure!
if you are to have any hope of telling if a real difference exists it will be with rapid switching. Decades of psychoacoustical research has demonstrated that the human ear is terrible at audio memory and needs rapid switching. Using rapid switching certain types and levels of distortion, especially IM distortion, we're found to be audible that never showed up in slower switching. Longest tests, particularly when you know what source is what, gives your mind and prejudices ample time to cloud the results.
Jeff
I'm afraid I'm recovering from the BeoVirus.
I just found another thing to like about Spotify. I had, been looking for an older Jazz album, not available on CD, out of print. Not on iTunes or Amazon. It's on Spotify. Go figure.
Stan:I just discovered Spotify with the last upgrade to the BS5, and I've already bought more music in the last month than I bought in the last 3-4 years. It has let me check out those albums that I was not sure if they were worth it to buy far more than the 30 second trials you get from iTunes or Amazon. I want to listen to the whole thing before I buy (maybe a couple times!), and I'm willing to pay $120 a year for this privilege. I still buy music that I think will stand the test of time - but this is still few and far between.
Thanks Stan - a good point - I might adopt your approach ... some of my purchases from 30 seconds samples in iTunes have turned out to be bombs.
Living Room: Beosystem 4, Beolab 7-2 (Center), Beolab 9 (Fronts), Beolab 8000 (Rears), no Subwoofer. Screen: Sony KD-85XH9096Dining Room: Beosound Essence MK II with Beolab 4000 on stands, fed by Amazon Echo Show 8Home Cinema: Beosystem 4, Beolab 7-4 (Center), Beolab 1 (Fronts), Beolab 4000 (Rears). Projector: Sony VPL-HW55Home Office: Beosystem 3, Beolab 7-4, Beolab 5000, Screen: Sony KD-55XH9005 on Beovision 7-40 stand, ML to Beosound 9000 MK3 and Beosound 5/Beomaster 5 (1 TB SSD version)Bedroom: Sony KD-65XH9077, Beosound Essence MK II with Beolab 6002 and Beolab 11 (all white, wall-mounted)
In storage: Beolab 5000/Beomaster 5000 (1960s).
Stan:I still buy music that I think will stand the test of time - but this is still few and far between. Stan
A fascinating thread, which I've been following from the start.
I think human nature, in general, has a lot to do with this. We all want as much as possible for as little as possible. That's normal. That's human.
If you can get unlimited music for a small amount of money - or for free, then 99.9% of people see it as a no brainer. We all have empathy, it's human of course, but as they say - "charity begins at home" ... and unless you have plenty of surplus cash, every penny counts.
Do we think about the plight of the artists when listening to spotify? Most people have little idea, or don't care. Does it destroy the smaller, experimental bands with new ideas and new sounds? Almost definitely... but the general public don't know what they like until they hear it. If they don't hear it, they'll just have the pick of what's out there and like something they're given. They're not going to demand something that's not yet been composed - they're just the public!
I'm a firm believer in the and/or model as opposed to the either/or. We will still buy music, even if we can listen to it on Spotify. We still buy paper and pens even though tablets and PC's can do all of that. We still read newspapers and magazines even though we can get it all online. We still post birthday cards and Christmas cards in the regular post, even though we could text or send an email..
Food for thought on an excellent thread.
Lee
30 years ago there was a great debate about artistes losing out because of cassette tape copying, and many organisations pushed tapes on the basis of 'Buy it now before the new tax comes in to compensate the performers'....
That tax never materialised. There's now plenty of software available to let you copy high quallity streaming from the web, but I can't be bothered with that approach. It might be a good approach for keeping a concert broadcast that might never appear as a CD or download. I still like to purchase physical CD's, but I have to confess that my preference is to listen to a handful of streaming radio stations, especially those that have no DJ's or commentators.
A good friend of mine has a son who plays bass with one of the UK's top bands. I get the impression that live performance is now much more important than releasing CDs.
Graham
vikinger: 30 years ago there was a great debate about artistes losing out because of cassette tape copying, and many organisations pushed tapes on the basis of 'Buy it now before the new tax comes in to compensate the performers'.... That tax never materialised.
That tax never materialised.
It did here, incidentally 30 years ago in 1984. I remember buying blank C-cassettes in Stockholm during a school trip because they were cheaper over there because of the tax. It's a fixed amount per meter of tape. The same tax was since extended to video tapes, blank CD-Rs, blank DVDs and hard disks installed in MP3 players and recoding STBs. They even managed to put it on external hard disks, because there's always a chance that somebody might store copyrighted material on them, and have been trying to include all hard disks and USB sticks. If the copyright mafia had their way, they would tax the air we breathe while we might be listening to music. All in the best interest of the artists, of course.
--mika
I think the copy debate is still raging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
Stan: I just discovered Spotify with the last upgrade to the BS5, and I've already bought more music in the last month than I bought in the last 3-4 years. It has let me check out those albums that I was not sure if they were worth it to buy far more than the 30 second trials you get from iTunes or Amazon. I want to listen to the whole thing before I buy (maybe a couple times!), and I'm willing to pay $120 a year for this privilege. I still buy music that I think will stand the test of time - but this is still few and far between. Stan
I agree with this - an artist may make more on an iTunes sale but there is a good chance that they will be exposed to a much wider audience on Spotify, with the potential for their audience to grow as a result. I probably bought a dozen or so CDs over the last year as a result of discovering artists I'd never heard of before on Spotify. I've probably bought 2 or 3 tracks from iTunes since 2007 (and they were to complete a Beoworld Christmas Album we'd put together).
Also, no one is guaranteed a living making music, it has always been a very transient industry with very few reaching the top, more so now than ever... this years "One Direction" are next years "Five". The lucky few will make it while some very unlucky talented artists will fail, it has always been this way. Hopefully the real quality can still make the leap to a big enough audience/fan base to generate a living, but if we lose some of the also rans and poor imitators are we really that bothered?
The real shame in all of this is not how much Spotifiy pays the artist, it''s how much the labels pay the artist from their Spotify income - there are far too many clingers on and far too much money leaving the industry to indirect personnel rather than remaining "on the shop floor", i.e. investing in artists and music production.
I used to think that Tony Blair was Damien Omen but have since come to realise it is actually Simon Cowell.
Ban boring signatures!
9 LEE: Do we think about the plight of the artists when listening to spotify? Most people have little idea, or don't care. Does it destroy the smaller, experimental bands with new ideas and new sounds? Almost definitely... but the general public don't know what they like until they hear it. If they don't hear it, they'll just have the pick of what's out there and like something they're given. They're not going to demand something that's not yet been composed - they're just the public!
Good point! The one thing I don’t agree with is the bolded part. Or like Killyp said earlier that ”we won’t see the real effects in 10-15 years on the coal face”. There will always be new ideas and sounds. And there will always be artists that will need a 2nd job to pay the rent. These new sounds won’t get lots of playtime either now on the radio. We just can’t predict how things look in 15 years. Especially now. Don’t underestimate weapons like Facebook and Twitter. You may dislike it or think it’s only to read useless posts from family, but the way people use social media now, it is a strong platform to promote your sound and follow artists you like. It’s so easy (and free) for artists, to throw some snippets/teasers of a new album or a new song, in their Soundcloud, and post it on their timeline, to get free air-time..
9 LEE: I'm a firm believer in the and/or model as opposed to the either/or. We will still buy music, even if we can listen to it on Spotify. We still buy paper and pens even though tablets and PC's can do all of that. We still read newspapers and magazines even though we can get it all online. We still post birthday cards and Christmas cards in the regular post, even though we could text or send an email..
Yes, excellent point! I also think there is room to co-exist. It’s exactly the point I made earlier between disposable songs and albums you really like.
linder: I think the copy debate is still raging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
Interesting. Indeed, the tax never did materialise in the UK, but UK copying is apparently illegal.
Now, where does that leave me with my BV11 hard disk?
9 LEE: I think human nature, in general, has a lot to do with this. We all want as much as possible for as little as possible. That's normal. That's human.
Maybe, I think you're not wrong Lee, but one of the reasons we like B&O, Bentley's, fine watches and so on is because we believe it spending money gets us a top quality product. In many ways, this goes against the ethos of 'the cheaper the better' which affects most of the general public. Almost turns them in to pack animals - there was a recent sale at ASDA at Cribbs Causeway where LCD TVs were reduced to £199 on Black Friday. People went nuts, got there at 5am and fights started when a bloke was told he couldn't buy two TVs!
As B&O users, we don't understand this philosophy, which is one of the (many) reason's we invest our cash in the brand.
vikinger: Interesting. Indeed, the tax never did materialise in the UK, but UK copying is apparently illegal.
The law was changed. You can now make a personal-use 'backup' of your CDs and DVDs, as long as you not break any copy protection. As Blu-ray and other products have copy protection, then it's illegal to break this.
I 'backup' my Blu-rays to my NAS drive, irrespective of the law, keeping the Blu-ray as proof of ownership. You can't, of course, go and sell any backed up/copied CD or DVD.
moxxey: 9 LEE: I think human nature, in general, has a lot to do with this. We all want as much as possible for as little as possible. That's normal. That's human. Maybe, I think you're not wrong Lee, but one of the reasons we like B&O, Bentley's, fine watches and so on is because we believe it spending money gets us a top quality product. In many ways, this goes against the ethos of 'the cheaper the better' which affects most of the general public. Almost turns them in to pack animals - there was a recent sale at ASDA at Cribbs Causeway where LCD TVs were reduced to £199 on Black Friday. People went nuts, got there at 5am and fights started when a bloke was told he couldn't buy two TVs! As B&O users, we don't understand this philosophy, which is one of the (many) reason's we invest our cash in the brand.
Recently saw on YouTube Black Friday fights in the US over some brand or other of trainers, where a new design had been brought out at about $160 per pair (sale price). These things are probably made in Vietnam for less than $10. So the general public will willingly pay way over the odds for a brand name if it seems affordable in relation to their stretched incomes. B&O on the otherhand will never look affordable except for one or two Play products. So, why do trainers and other branded items of clothing attract such irrational interest? They are overpriced yet seem affordable to the masses.
I keep hearing this idea that the industry has always been about "all the money at the top", musicians signing terrible deals which result in them not getting paid, fat cats in the industry etc...
This has not been the experience of 90% of musicians for the last 30 years. They may not be all that visible in the public eye, but a large number of people have earned good livings off the industry, and are now finding it impossible to. I'm not talking about Peter Gabriels and Carole Kings here, this is session musicians, studio owners, engineers, independent jazz musicians.
The truth is the major labels have helped prop up a significant part of the industry by funding musicians on their way up (it's a long way up as well). As I say, the idea of the top 5% funding the other 95% or whatever the exact figure is. This is no longer happening.
If you think Spotify is the way forward for a musically diverse and 'independent' industry, then you need to see some of the basic figures coming through from independents. As I say, I have seen CD/Vinyl sales drop when artists then decide to release their music on Spotify - all in the name of building a wider fan base, only to find they no longer have enough money to keep making music. If Spotify can co-exist with iTunes and other services, then why is this the case?
Also RE the whole 'free' thing, and the conversation about whether this is what Spotify is about, nobody has yet given me a reason why it is better than iTunes? I'm now on 4G on my mobile phone, and can download an entire album from the iTunes store in around a minute without even being near a WiFi hotspot - it's basically instant for most users nowadays. Why then is it losing out to Spotify? What possible advantage can you think Spotify has over iTunes?
Many projects nowadays are recorded in studios which aren't making any money, in many cases losing huge amounts of money. Why do they exist? Well some of the big names at the top of the industry who still are still earning significant incomes from royalties (often on music written and recorded many years ago) need some business expenses right? This is the case for most of the major studios if they aren't focussing on film scoring etc... which is making it impossible (not difficult, impossible) for so many musicians to find a reliable, decent quality studio where to record their projects.
Glad to see theres been a discussion about this though.
@killyP
1. You have heard lots of advantages to streamers that you apparently choose to disregard, the main one being the exposure to entire catalogs before purchase versus buying based on a soundbite. That's your prerogative.
2. Given that you cannot buy Apple Lossless files, how are those available for purchase any better than those on Rdio, Pandora, Rhapsody, and Spotify (@320k for premium account)?
3. What evidence do you have that Artist A gets better revenue for selling music from iTunes with no streaming exposure other than Apple, versus purchase from WalMart or Amazon with no exposure from streamers? When you can back your assertions with real independent data versus anecdotes, your argument will have more credibility.
4. Why argue which way forward is better? It is pointless because the way forward has been determined, right or wrong, better or worse.
5. You have brought to light some great concerns, and how those concerns impact people you know. Heard and understood.
A snippet from a real 2001 conversation when I was a Director going through a buyout...
Scott: Ray, when are you going to quit spending your energy on this? It's GRAVITY.
Ray: I can make it right.
Scott: When it's one man against the system, I'll bet on the system. You should too.
Beosound Stage, Beovision 8-40, Beolit 20, Beosound Explore.
Chris Townsend:If anyone is really concerned that Spotify is lowering the income of the artists or employees, I hope you have never used a low cost airline, or a service like Amazon! The commercial pressure airlines are under from a public who are used to and expect the lowest of fares, is driving some to charge new pilots to work for them ie you actually pay to fly the plane! I payed £26,000 for a 6 week course to fly my current aircraft. Non low cost traditional carriers build this cost into to their fares. Unfortunately the aviation industry has had to change because of those new markets and pressures. I don't really have much sympathy for those adapting to a world, most of us have toiled with for a very long time.
The commercial pressure airlines are under from a public who are used to and expect the lowest of fares, is driving some to charge new pilots to work for them ie you actually pay to fly the plane!
I payed £26,000 for a 6 week course to fly my current aircraft. Non low cost traditional carriers build this cost into to their fares. Unfortunately the aviation industry has had to change because of those new markets and pressures. I don't really have much sympathy for those adapting to a world, most of us have toiled with for a very long time.
Just read an online report suggesting that robotics/ technology is removing the need for a whole lot of future jobs, including pilots surgeons and lawyers. A lot of manufacturing is returning to the west, but only because of robotics..... Very few people actually get employed in these returning industries. Medium term anyone engaged in repeated but unique work (they suggest IT, civil and mechanical engineers) will be OK but in the long run the thinkng machines are taking over!
Maybe we can all live on benefits and B&O systems will ultimately cost pennies.
symmes: @killyP 1. You have heard lots of advantages to streamers that you apparently choose to disregard, the main one being the exposure to entire catalogs before purchase versus buying based on a soundbite. That's your prerogative. 2. Given that you cannot buy Apple Lossless files, how are those available for purchase any better than those on Rdio, Pandora, Rhapsody, and Spotify (@320k for premium account)? 3. What evidence do you have that Artist A gets better revenue for selling music from iTunes with no streaming exposure other than Apple, versus purchase from WalMart or Amazon with no exposure from streamers? When you can back your assertions with real independent data versus anecdotes, your argument will have more credibility. 4. Why argue which way forward is better? It is pointless because the way forward has been determined, right or wrong, better or worse. 5. You have brought to light some great concerns, and how those concerns impact people you know. Heard and understood. A snippet from a real 2001 conversation when I was a Director going through a buyout... Scott: Ray, when are you going to quit spending your energy on this? It's GRAVITY. Ray: I can make it right. Scott: When it's one man against the system, I'll bet on the system. You should too.
1) You already do have exposure to an entire artist's catalogue before buying it. I've sat and listened through entire albums in record shops before buying them. Or listened on YouTube before buying CDs. Both of these are methods which force a listener to actually pay for the music or album if they really want to listen to it properly (i.e. not in a browser at 96kbps audio). Do you really need 320kbps audio to judge whether you want to buy an album?
2) They're significantly better - 256kbps AAC is a better sounding medium than 320kbps ogg vorbis.
3) I don't really understand your question? I'm not having a dig at iTunes or any other digital distributor other than Spotify. iTunes pays enough to justify it as a distribution business model, as does Wal Mart, Amazon etc. Spotify doesn't. Further, you really want me to go and ask one of the artists I've worked with if they'll publish a report on which revenue streams they've earned income on from at which times so that a few people can go online and find out that Spotify isn't paying the musicians enough money to justify recording their music? A major label might well publish such a report because the model works well for them. Major labels aren't however producing music like they used to, so it's a moot point whether it works for the major labels or not - they will always find a business model which works for them, even if it involves churning out 20 mainstream 'artists' a year then moving on to something completely different the next.
4) The way forwards hasn't been determined. There is no 'way forward' when it involves losing money to make music. Musicians have rent and bills to pay, food like any of us. Are you really saying you think they should ignore the fact they can have constant national radio play, be gigging five nights a week in front of 500+ people audiences and recording three albums a year yet still earn less than £12,000? This isn't the 'way forwards' - this is one company's (Spotify's) idea of how to earn money.
5) This is not just something which is going to impact the musicians (which it already is), it will impact the consumer in the long run as well.
As I say, these are all issues which are very difficult to see unless you are part of the industry, but seeing the damage a service like Spotify has done to the industry (that is the 90% of working musicians, not the 0.1% of people who make up the body of the 'current mainstream artists' and the rest who are label and business executives. This even filters it's way down into education - schools here in Wales have for example cut-back hard on their music education (to the point many schools no longer offer music lessons) and who can blame them? Why would they want to train young people up with skills when they can't see them directly earning an income as a result of the education they've had?
This idea that music can be 'free' will have very far-reaching consequences, and it is Spotify who are fuelling the fire.
vikinguk: Just read an online report suggesting that robotics/ technology is removing the need for a whole lot of future jobs, including pilots surgeons and lawyers. A lot of manufacturing is returning to the west, but only because of robotics..... Very few people actually get employed in these returning industries. Medium term anyone engaged in repeated but unique work (they suggest IT, civil and mechanical engineers) will be OK but in the long run the thinkng machines are taking over! Maybe we can all live on benefits and B&O systems will ultimately cost pennies. Graham
Trust me, there will always be a need for somebody to dive in or repair the robot when it inevitably goes wrong. I have had double autopilot failure more than once, one if which was a Newcastle gatwick x 2 in bad weather. How on earth have we got onto robots?
Killyp: This has not been the experience of 90% of musicians for the last 30 years. They may not be all that visible in the public eye, but a large number of people have earned good livings off the industry, and are now finding it impossible to. I'm not talking about Peter Gabriels and Carole Kings here, this is session musicians, studio owners, engineers, independent jazz musicians. The truth is the major labels have helped prop up a significant part of the industry by funding musicians on their way up (it's a long way up as well). As I say, the idea of the top 5% funding the other 95% or whatever the exact figure is. This is no longer happening.
Well, I’m not working in the industry, but if I did the exact same job as 20 years ago, I would have been useless for the last 15 years. My point is you can’t lean back if you found a way to make a living. That goes for every job. Musicians, studio owners, etc have to deal with the fact that technology is moving forward. Their talent can also give lot of opportunities to make a living in a different way. You can't fight a future that already exists. So they just have to be creative. Easier said than done, but they have to deal with it.
Killyp: If you think Spotify is the way forward for a musically diverse and 'independent' industry, then you need to see some of the basic figures coming through from independents. As I say, I have seen CD/Vinyl sales drop when artists then decide to release their music on Spotify - all in the name of building a wider fan base, only to find they no longer have enough money to keep making music. If Spotify can co-exist with iTunes and other services, then why is this the case?
I see your point and it's a good one! But should the Spotify users feel guilty about this? I pay more for my music than before Spotify.
Killyp: Also RE the whole 'free' thing, and the conversation about whether this is what Spotify is about, nobody has yet given me a reason why it is better than iTunes? I'm now on 4G on my mobile phone, and can download an entire album from the iTunes store in around a minute without even being near a WiFi hotspot - it's basically instant for most users nowadays. Why then is it losing out to Spotify? What possible advantage can you think Spotify has over iTunes?
You just answered your own question. Instant is the way to go. Besides that, downloading an entire album, cost me +/- 10 euro. Just one!
Killyp: Glad to see theres been a discussion about this though.
Yes, it does!
Spotify Payments
Assuming the quoted numbers are somewhere close to being realistic, is this unreasonable??
Something just occurred to me. In the music biz, obviously if your music is popular and a lot of people listen to it you make more money than if you're not popular. Notice I am avoiding saying good, quality and popularity often aren't really related in my opinion.
Services like Spotify amplify this result. Say your record is great and a lot of people love it and listen to it all the time. You will make money from sales, and if people stream it a lot. Say your album isn't that great, if a number of people buy the album, you will make money regardless of,whether they listen once and immediately drop it in the trash, you've got their money. If its not that good, people will stream it once and never again. I think this magnifies the downside of not so good music on an artists cash flow. And increases the potential money for really popular songs. It also will have an effect of magnifying the differences between music that's a short lived fad vs, music that becomes a classic that stands the test of time. Think of a really popular but short lived bands album vs. something like Dark Side Of The Moon, which sat on Bilboards top 200 list for decades.
Jeff: Something just occurred to me. In the music biz, obviously if your music is popular and a lot of people listen to it you make more money than if you're not popular. Notice I am avoiding saying good, quality and popularity often aren't really related in my opinion. Services like Spotify amplify this result. Say your record is great and a lot of people love it and listen to it all the time. You will make money from sales, and if people stream it a lot. Say your album isn't that great, if a number of people buy the album, you will make money regardless of,whether they listen once and immediately drop it in the trash, you've got their money. If its not that good, people will stream it once and never again. I think this magnifies the downside of not so good music on an artists cash flow. And increases the potential money for really popular songs. It also will have an effect of magnifying the differences between music that's a short lived fad vs, music that becomes a classic that stands the test of time. Think of a really popular but short lived bands album vs. something like Dark Side Of The Moon, which sat on Bilboards top 200 list for decades.
Good point, and Dark Side of the Moon is a good example. I was so impressed by DSOTM all those years ago that I bought another double album, unheard, by Pink Floyd. That turned out to be a terrible compilation of their earlier unsuccessful work. Too late, they had my money. Had there been a service like Spotify then after sampling a couple of tracks I could have made the decision not to buy. (DSOTM was so good I forgave them.)
That was really my earlier point - any full-time career in music is surely only going to happen for those talented few (or those hyped by Simon and his machine). While it's a shame that many don't make the grade, for most it will be for a perfectly sound reason - just as not everyone who can pick out a tune on a violin gets to play with the RPO.
Regarding session muso's and studio owners etc. - they (mostly) never saw any of the royalties anyway, they were a one off cost (consider it an investment or a gamble) incurred at the outset against any future success of the resulting recording. For major labels this investment could be substantial but I also know of local gigging bands who have forked out several £K of there own money to produce there own albums - they'll be lucky to get their money back from sales to friends and family!
Part of the slump in professional recording studios is as much down to the quality of small project studios these days as it is anything else. Unless you have need of famous live recording spaces, exotic mics/outboard equipment or the time of a renowned in-house engineer or producer then they have surprisingly little extra to offer.
If Spotify are to believed then, even with no further increase in catalogue size, any increase in subscriber income will result in increased income from royalties to the artist and labels - it would seem to be in their own interest to embrace and promote the subscription streaming model!! Also if you dropped your premium subscription tomorrow after,say 5, years of membership (or £600) you own absolutely nothing! - any music you wanted you would have to procure from elsewhere, either by outright purchase or another subscription service.......how can this be robbing the artist?
moxxey:Further interesting news on the 'decline' of digital music downloads, due to streaming: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/01/04/digital-music-sales-decline-for-first-time-since-opening-of-itunes-music-store/ As for artists not releasing CDs - the point I was trying to make is that these publishers (it's not an artist decision, it's the publisher) make a commercial decision and if they aren't going to release a CD, then they aren't going to bother with lossless versions, either. We'll be stuck with digital-only downloads/streaming, soon, listening to these tracks on our £8K BL18/BL19 speaker setup.