Continuing with Spotify?

I do wish there would be a big name, current pop star joining this crusade. I've seen an increasing number of "lol boomers are mad about streaming" takes that I could do without.

xp the good news is that something like what youre describing seems to be among the most likely outcomes. I believe ShariVari said this upthread too - as Spotify's unsustainable model catches up with it, catalogs disperse and the streaming landscape becomes balkanized into smaller more specialized offerings, similar to whats happened with video streaming over the last 5 years.

I can see that happening too, I'm just not sure the average streaming consumer is going to be as willing to sign up for eight different audio streamers as they have been with video streamers, though time will tell. I think multiple video streamers, could still be sold as a "savings" when compared to regular old cable, but signing up for multiple audio sites will be seen as added cost that isn't replacing something else.

Yeah I agree

Yeah, you have to remember there's already been a generation or two that came up not getting conditioned to pay $$ for music.

Do you like classical music and want a service that actually properly curates that kind of thing? Crucially... these services could be integrated with the big streamers, just like how big box stores started selling independent records of a large enough distribution, just like how my Amazon streaming account has a "Britbox" addon I pay extra for and can seamlessly switch from one content library to another within the app.

i agree with this, but the problem is that these companies just get bought. here's an example:

https://www.primephonic.com

they actually editorialized around composers, performers etc, giving you insight and context, nice big images, and they had worked out the metadata really well. and well, boom apple bought them. feels like straight up anticompetitive behavior.

xpost I saw yet another 'big name' on FB saying streaming music wasn't hurting the music industry, but that 'oversaturation of inventory' is, the canard that many of us fell for back in 2002 but has long been debunked.

Tiktok and youtube aren't causing movie studios and Netflix to go bankrupt

Netflix is $18,000,000,000 in debt

home fucking is killing prostitution

-bickel

> Netflix is $18,000,000,000 in debt

Its revenue was 25 billion with 4.5 billion profit last year, guess we'll see if this little upstart can prove the naysayers wrong

Guilty lol.

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/273022657_1868110773387734_1640899053630540663_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=hK4a7GaCAWEAX8Rl9G8&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9Dd5cCmZPJU0Kz65kqRr8wy7YHbv3C8gfrLFTMs0R7zg&oe=61FF55A8

call me when taylor or adele or post malone or drake pull the trigger

ED SHEERAN THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE ME SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT YOU

I can see that happening too, I'm just not sure the average streaming consumer is going to be as willing to sign up for eight different audio streamers as they have been with video streamers, though time will tell. I think multiple video streamers, could still be sold as a "savings" when compared to regular old cable, but signing up for multiple audio sites will be seen as added cost that isn't replacing something else.

― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:03 PM (seven hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Especially since one of the big value propositions of an audio streaming service that has (almost) everything is that you can make or listen to playlists with all of your favorite artists mixed together. If, for instance, Sony, Warner, and Universal each have their own services with their own artists, that's no longer possible.

they tried that about 5-10 years ago, not so much the content providers as the people supplying the network - sony playstation had its own subscription music service, and several phone companies tried it, samsung Milk for instance, but they couldn't compete with spotify. (maybe the fact they weren't content providers is key, there was nothing really exclusive to these services and anyone who cared about streaming already had a spotify subscription)

mig's making a more nuanced case than that, though. like the way you can add britbox to your amazon prime subscription. you could add, say, bluenote to your spotify subscription, or, some specialized techno aggregator that represented dance labels.

I can see that happening too, I'm just not sure the average streaming consumer is going to be as willing to sign up for eight different audio streamers as they have been with video streamers, though time will tell. I think multiple video streamers, could still be sold as a "savings" when compared to regular old cable, but signing up for multiple audio sites will be seen as added cost that isn't replacing something else.

I do think that if there was a balkanization taking in the real big names - if you simply couldn't stream Taylor Swift, Kanye and Ed Sheeran through the same service* - most ppl would suck it up and pay, especially since the latest generation brought up not to pay for music has also been brought up without the knowledge of how to pirate it

* no idea if these are on the same label, replace names as necessary

the answer is don't be so fucking greedy and obsessed with constantly expanding market share
if spotify offered a sub that doubled the cost and funneled all the new money to artist payment and then incentivized "premium" the problem would be largely solved but they won't do that because CAPITALISM

and yeah i know that sounds crazy but what if spotify invested in its own future and not AI helmed death robots? which option sounds less crazy there?

Tidal just did that, fwiw. You pay $20 and the royalty $$ goes specifically to the artists you listen to (isn’t “pooled”)

they should really get rid of the free option. i mean i use it and wouldn't switch to paying but presumably a fair few people would. at the moment the free option has p much no downside for me as i don't listen to music out and about so don't need an offline fix and the adverts don't bother me that much, it's not like they come in mid song.

My kid the Apple fanboy used the current kerfuffle as an excuse to do what he wanted to do anyway, switch the whole family from Spotify to Apple Music, and I gotta say it's completely seamless and painless (though note I didn't have 6000 ultra-customized playlists on Spotify, I basically just stream from it.)

if you simply couldn't stream Taylor Swift, Kanye and Ed Sheeran through the same service* - most ppl would suck it up and pay, especially since the latest generation brought up not to pay for music has also been brought up without the knowledge of how to pirate it

Totally agree with this. I used to laugh at people who paid $50/mo. for cable and occasionally watch movies I wanted to see on shady Russian sites, now I play $50/mo. to have four different streaming services, that's where the shows are and I accept it.

don't think most people would do that for music but a lot of them might.

I just don't agree that "most people" would suck it up and pay, because there has been, as noted, multiple generations raised on the idea that they shouldn't have to pay for music. I already know people who "just use youtube" to listen to music because they don't want to pay for streaming. Cable and video streaming works because people have been, in essence, trained for decades to know they have to pay for premium content.

What if the users boycotted? I mean— what if there was a date named and on that day, we all cancel our premium accounts and delete the Spotify app?

Instead of waiting for "the big names" to "step up", what if the users took a stand?

I guess it's the same answer as why a general work strike isn't very realistic either.

this is probably yet another dumb solution for fixing the music industry but:

wouldn't it make sense for artists to not immediately release their new albums to streaming services so that the people who immediately want to hear the new releases will pay for them, while more casual fans wait 3 or 6 months until these releases show up on streaming services. Similarly to movies who first show up in movie theatres or VOD and then eventually show up for "free" on Netflix or wherever.

I've thought about that before, but I'm guessing people who rely on highly charting singles aren't going to want to give up the buzz they get by the first week streaming numbers being factored into chart placings.

I'm guessing this kind of approach would work more for niche artists or genres rather than chart topping artists

not immediately release their new albums to streaming services so that the people who immediately want to hear the new releases will pay for them, while more casual fans wait 3 or 6 months until these releases show up on streaming services.

Unfortunately with pressing plant delays and the decline of the CD, this works in reverse lately. You preorder an album a month before release date, you get the downloads on release and the vinyl the following year.

silverfish, that's awfully reminiscent of the Record Store Day "FOMO" model, for better or for worse.

It doesn't really solve the issue of Spotify harboring disinformation and pushing dangerous propaganda, unfortunately. In my cynical negative guy brain, it exacerbates that problem.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/imagine-a-world-without-spotify

^alex ross being otm

multiple generations raised on the idea that they shouldn't have to pay for music.

I dunno, almost half of Spotify users pay the monthly fee (I did) -- the difference between paying four monthly fees and one seems a lot smaller than the difference between one and zero. At least, that's the way it was for me and TV -- I never had cable, and then, at some point, realized that Netflix would actually be a good deal for me -- and once I was paying one monthly fee, the barrier was down for me to add others. But I will never buy an individual DVD again, that's a different thing. (And I'm almost universally unwilling to pay $4 to watch an individual movie streaming, but I can't really justify my unwillingness there, it makes no sense.)

Yeah, somehow it's hard psychologically to "rent" a movie now, even though it's just a few bucks... don't know why

yeah I have to remind myself that I used to pretty regularly spend 10-20$ per week renting movies, so occasionally paying 5$ to see a movie at home is not a big deal

we are as financially moral as our options allow

"...I think Abraham Lincoln said that"

RE: Digital movie rentals

If it's something I really want to see, then okay fine I'll pay the $5 or whatever. But even then, it's very much a last resort and I can count the number of times I've done that on one hand. At least in the old days of physical rentals, you got to keep it for a few days and rewatch favorite parts if desired.

RE: New Yorker piece

This sums things up very well:

Ek makes for a quotable villain, yet the rage against Spotify falls into a familiar American pattern: instead of addressing systemic issues, we stage morality plays involving the misdeeds of individuals. One miscreant falls, another rises, and the song remains the same.

(cues up the Stylistics "People Make the World Go Round")

But I will never buy an individual DVD again, that's a different thing.

Am I the only person who bemoans the loss of making-of featurettes, bonus content, deleted scenes, director commentary and the like?

I do too

(I love that sh1t)

I totally miss them.

I think one/a problem with streaming is that Spotify et al. are essentially just glorified on-demand radio stations, with different users tilting more one way or the other - on-demand at one end, curated radio at the other. The issue is that this long-extant model ("free" music on the radio/internet/MTV/wherever) has been directly linked to a commerce model, but it can never work as a commerce model any more than radio can/does without "real" music sales (whether physical or digital). It's a great promotional platform, like radio is or can be, but it can't generate enough revenue to go 'round. It reminds me of that interview with DJ Shadow where he concedes he couldn't credit all the samples on "Entroducing" because every artist always wants half, but you can only divide something in half once before you start hitting significantly diminishing returns, fractions of a fraction, which helps no one. (At least that's how I remember the interview.) And fractions of a fraction is essentially what Spotify et al. are paying out, but there ultimately is no equitable solution to that issue.

Like, people argue, hey, then how can you afford to pay Joe Rogan $100 million? And the answer, perversely, is that $100 million ain't nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially when you're talking about fairly (whatever that means) compensating literally countless artists being streamed on your platform. I think the Hurley piece (which I would have linked to, just wasn't sure how to link to her Facebook post) gives a figure that Spotify would have to hit just to raise its pay-outs a bit more, and it was astronomical. Like $11 billion or something? And as Isbell responded to someone who asked how podcasters can make all this money, "Because record labels just now started getting into the podcast business. Give it time and the podcasters won’t make much either."

Anyway, the Rogan bullshit is a content debate, not really a compensation debate.

_But I will never buy an individual DVD again, that's a different thing._

Am I the only person who bemoans the loss of making-of featurettes, bonus content, deleted scenes, director commentary and the like?

> it can never work as a commerce model any more than radio can/does without "real" music sales

I respectfully disagree... You just need some gatekeeping/limited catalog so that the overall revenues are higher, and targeted better. HBO over the past 20 years has literally leveraged $5-10/month from individual opt-in subscribers who wanted a tasty mix of exclusive new and catalog content from its stable of creators and licensed contributors. It has been culturally seismic in using that subscription money to make content that people talk about and were excited about.

If instead of a mix of its own content and licensed catalog stuff starting with the Sopranos and Deadwood and the Wire, in 2001 or so it had given $50 million dollars to Rush Limbaugh as its major play to have exclusive content, we would be thinking of HBO as a shitty, shitty platform. It would be "that movie channel that has Rush Limbaugh (who is evil)". This is what Spotify has inexplicably done for itself. Its whole model was AGAINST exclusive content for music, it was for liberating all the world's music into one super-convenient streaming library, and instead of using its revenue to finance, oh i dunno, good original music like maybe exclusive live albums or something, maybe a Friday night DJ mix party with people gathering together to listen together and then share the next day, whatever, what does it decide to identify itself with? This awful sort of next-generation trumpy person who is a charismatic no-nothing cynical valueless alt-right creep responsible for mainstreaming horrible ideas that get people killed.

> Anyway, the Rogan bullshit is a content debate, not really a compensation debate.

I agree. It's just that the Rogan BS really helped clarify for me this sort of itchy feeling I've had about Spotify, which was that in spite of it being literally the best thing that ever happened for music junkies, the company just doesn't give a shit about music really. I know it's a cliche to hate on tech companies while using them all day. It's genuinely strange to me and it shouldn't be. Netflix clearly doesn't really get the potential of visual storytelling either but my goodness at least they try.

All you have to do is go use Bandcamp for like 5 minutes and you'll realize which service actually values musicians and music, and which is trying to create a new payola system.

this was good, despite the annoying title:

https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/100280-007-A/has-streaming-saved-the-music-industry/

payola? how so? (I've uploaded and sold a few albums on Bandcamp but not enough to really understand the finer points

Spotify is creating a payola system by driving everyone toward their (algorithmic or editorial) playlists, to which they can then sell access.